title: Case C-226/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2015 by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/7

         Appeal brought on 18 May 2015 by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM
   (Case C-226/15 P)
   (2015/C 254/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, EU:T:2015:186, insofar as it dismisses the action brought by the appellants seeking, principally, alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4;

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4, so that the appeal brought by the appellants before that Board of Appeal is held to be well founded, with the consequence that their opposition to the registration of the Community trade mark application ENGLISH PINK No 8610768 must be upheld;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay all the costs of the appellants in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds.
   First, the appellants submit that both the General Court and the Board of Appeal breached the general principle of res judicata concerning a decision on a matter between the same parties by a Community trade mark court applying Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (CTMR) (1), as well as the general principles of legal certainty, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations.
   Second, the appellants complain that the General Court infringed Article 65(3) of that Regulation in not altering the decision of OHIM.
   Last, since, in the appellants’ view, the state of the proceedings permits the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, they request that it apply the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case T-242/12: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — SNCF v Commission (State aid — Aid measures implemented by France in favour of Sernam SCS — Aid measures for restructuring and recapitalising, guarantees and debt write-off by SNCF in favour of Sernam — Decision declaring the aid measures incompatible with the internal market — Misuse of aid — Recovery — Economic continuity — Private investor criterion)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — SNCF v Commission
   (Case T-242/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid measures implemented by France in favour of Sernam SCS - Aid measures for restructuring and recapitalising, guarantees and debt write-off by SNCF in favour of Sernam - Decision declaring the aid measures incompatible with the internal market - Misuse of aid - Recovery - Economic continuity - Private investor criterion))
   (2016/C 059/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard and V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially D. Colas and J. Gstalter, subsequently by D. Colas and J. Rossi and finally by D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Mory SA, in liquidation, (Pantin, France) and Mory Team, in liquidation, (Pantin) (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/398/EU of 9 March 2012 on State aid SA. 12522 (C 37/08) — France — Enforcing the Sernam 2 Decision (OJ 2012 L 195, p. 19).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application of the Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF);

               2.

               Orders SNCF to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Mory and Mory Team to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-392/12: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lavazza v OHIM — Commercialunione prima (LAVAZZA A MODO MIO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/48

         Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Lavazza v OHIM — Commercialunione prima (LAVAZZA A MODO MIO)
   (Case T-392/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 138/63)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, M. Ricolfi, G. Sironi and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by F. Mattina, subsequently by F. Mattina and N. Bambara, and finally by N. Bambara and P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Commercialunione Prima Srl (Bresso, Italy) (represented by: G. Celona and B. Dosi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 124/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Commercialunione Prima Srl and Luigi Lavazza SpA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case C-55/10 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/18

         Appeal brought on 2 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment delivered on 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (222)
   (Case C-55/10 P)
   2010/C 113/28
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-200/07 to T-202/07;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation (1) by applying incorrect legal criteria when finding that the trade marks belonging to the appellant do not qualify for registration.
   The appellant further pleads that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 7(1)(c) or 76 of the Community trade mark regulation, or both of those provisions, by not taking due account of OHIM’s practice relating to the registration of signs consisting of figures or indicating the content of a publication.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-529/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 17 September 2011 — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 17 September 2011 — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-529/11)
   2011/C 370/31
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Questions referred

               1.

               For a parent to qualify as a ‘primary carer’ so as to derive a right of residence from a child, over 21 exercising a right of access to education under Article 12 Regulation No 1612/68 [see now Article 10 Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)], is it necessary for that child to be (i) dependent on such a parent; (ii) residing in that parent's household; and (iii) receiving emotional support from that parent?

               2.

               If in order to qualify for such a derived right of residence it is unnecessary for a parent to show that all three of the above circumstances obtain, is it sufficient to show that only one obtains or that only two obtain?

               3.

               In relation to (ii) above, can there continue to be residence on the part of an adult student child in a common household with his parent(s) even when the former is living away from home for the duration of his studies (save for holidays and occasional weekends)?

               4.

               In relation to (iii) above, is it necessary for the emotional support provided by the parent to be of a particular quality (viz. close or physically proximate) or is it sufficient if it consists in a normal emotional tie between a parent and an adult child?

               5.

               Where a person has held an EU right of residence under Article 12 of Regulation No. 1612/68 [see now Article 10 Regulation (EU) No. 492/2011] for a continuous period of more than five years, does such residence qualify for the purposes of acquiring aright of permanent residence under Chapter IV of Directive 2004/38/EC (2) (the Citizens Directive) on ‘Right of Permanent Residence’) and being issued with a residence card under Article 19 of the same Directive?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union
   OJ L 141, p. 1

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
   OJ L 158, p. 77


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  19 January 2006  in Case C-244/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Undertaking employing workers who are nationals of non-member States — Undertaking providing services in another Member State — Work visa regime)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 19 January 2006
   in Case C-244/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Undertaking employing workers who are nationals of non-member States - Undertaking providing services in another Member State - Work visa regime)
   (2006/C 60/10)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-244/04, Action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 8 June 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and E. Traversa) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann), the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not confining itself to making the posting of workers who are nationals of non-member States for the purpose of the provision of services in Germany subject to a simple prior declaration by the undertaking established in another Member State which intends to post such workers, and by requiring that they have been employed for at least a year by that undertaking, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-181/15: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament (Public service contracts — Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services — Withdrawal of the act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/30

         Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament
   (Case T-181/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services - Withdrawal of the act - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 191/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to use the negotiated procedure PE/ITEC-NPE-15.8 without prior publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services to the Parliament and to other institutions and agencies of the European Union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Parliament is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case C-329/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Ferdinand Stefan v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2003/4/EC — Validity — Public access to environmental information — Exception to the obligation to disclose environmental information where the disclosure compromises the ability of any person to receive a fair trial — Optional nature of that exception for Member States — Article 6 TEU — Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/6

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien — Austria) — Ferdinand Stefan v Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-329/13) (1)

   ((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2003/4/EC - Validity - Public access to environmental information - Exception to the obligation to disclose environmental information where the disclosure compromises the ability of any person to receive a fair trial - Optional nature of that exception for Member States - Article 6 TEU - Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter))
   2014/C 261/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferdinand Stefan

      Defendant: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Operative part of the order

   Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-64/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Immediate taxation of unrealised gains — Transfer of the place of residence of a company, termination of the activities of a permanent establishment or transfer of the assets of that establishment)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-64/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Immediate taxation of unrealised gains - Transfer of the place of residence of a company, termination of the activities of a permanent establishment or transfer of the assets of that establishment)
   2013/C 171/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González and M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA — Tax provisions pursuant to which companies ceasing to have their tax residence in Spain or transferring their assets to another State must immediately pay an exit tax

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting Article 17(1)(a) and (c) of the re-cast text of the Law on corporate taxation, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 4/2004 of 5 March 2004 (Real Decreto Legislativo 4/2004 por el que se aprueba el Texto Refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades), pursuant to which, in the case of a transfer to another Member State of the place of residence of a company established in Spain and of the assets of a permanent establishment situated in Spain, unrealised gains form part of the tax base for the financial year, whereas those assets have no immediate consequences in terms of tax if those transactions tax place in Spanish territory, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case C-494/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Dixons Retail Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Dixons Retail Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-494/12)
   2013/C 26/48
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dixons Retail Plc

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 14.1 of Council Directive of 28 November 2006 (2006/112/EU (1)) to be interpreted as applying when the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraud in that the payment provided by the transferee is by means of a card which the transferee knows he has no authority to use?

               2.

               When the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraudulent use of a card, is there a ‘transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’ within Article 14.1?

               3.

               Is Article 73 to be interpreted as applying when payment is obtained by the transferor of goods under an agreement with a third party to make such payment in respect of a card transactions notwithstanding that the transferee of the goods knows that he has no authority to use the card?

               4.

               When payment is made by a third party pursuant to an agreement between the transferor of the goods an the third party as a consequence of the presentation to the transferor of a card which the transferee of the goods has no authority to use is the payment obtained from the third party ‘in return for the supply’ within Article 73?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case T-162/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GREEN by missako — Earlier national and Community figurative marks MI SA KO — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 November 2009 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)
   (Case T-162/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GREEN by missako - Earlier national and Community figurative marks MI SA KO - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2009/C 312/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Frag Comercio Internacional, SL (Esparreguera, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Verburg, Agent,)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tinkerbell Modas LTDA (São Paulo, Brazil)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 February 2008 (Case R 1527/2006–2) relating to opposition proceedings between Tinkerbell Modas LTDA and Frag Comercio Internacional, SL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Frag Comercio Internacional, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case T-296/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Representation of flushing systems for water closets)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/51

         Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Representation of flushing systems for water closets)
   (Case T-296/17)
   (2017/C 239/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Buck-Chemie GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design No 1663618-0003

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 2113/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court and before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 62 and Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Article 5 and Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Action brought on 8 August 1995 by LPN - Liga para a Protecção da Natureza, and by GEOTA - Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Território e do Ambiente, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-155/95)

text:
28 . 10 . 95           KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 286/ 15
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Gonzalez Diaz               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Géraud de Bergues ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 94/893/EC of 21 June 1994 declaring               The applicant, who is employed by the United Kingdom
a concentration to be compatible with the common market               Atomic Energy Authority ( UKAEA ) and the JET Joint
and the functioning of the EEA Agreement ( IV/M.430 —                 Undertaking, as a senior member of the JET project team, as
Procter & Gamble/VP Schickedanz ( II ), OJ No L 354, p. 32 )          well as one of the applicants in Case T- 177/94 Altmann and
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended               Others, challenges the Commission's decision refusing him
Composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,             the possibility of changing his employment from the
and D. P. M. Barrington , A. Saggio , H. Kirschner and A.             UKAEA to the Commission itself, in accordance with
Kalogeropoulos , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an             Article 8 of the JET Statutes .
order on 16 August 1995 , in which it :
                                                                      The current application derives from the requirement,
 1 . rejects the request by Procter & Gamble GmbH for a               imposed by that article, that where staff are 'made available
     derogation from the rules governing languages in so far          by the Members of the JET Joint Undertaking other than the
     as it concerns the written procedure;                            host organization' and 'recruited by the Commission for
                                                                      temporary posts' the member in question ' shall undertake to
2 . grants the request of Procter & Gamble GmbH to use                re-employ the staff whom it placed at the disposal of the
     English in the oral procedure;                                   Project (. . .) as soon as the work of such staff on the Project
                                                                      has been completed'. This requirement having been
3.   reserves its decision as to costs .                              systematically interpreted by the Commission to mean that
                                                                      all temporary employees of the Commission working at JET
(') O J No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   are required to obtain a 'return ticket' from a member of JET
                                                                      other than UKAEA, the applicant has now obtained a
                                                                      ' return ticket ' from the Swedish National Science Research
                                                                      Council , a member of JET, via an offer of employment from
                                                                      the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology .
Action brought on 7 April 1995 by Peter Esmond Stott                  It is fundamental to the applicant's case that since 1987 the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 Commission, and the JET management generally, have
                         ( Case T-99/95 )                             failed to take any proper account of their obligations
                           ( 95/C 286/36 )                            towards the UKAF1A employees of JET and have in fact
                                                                      acted deliberately against the interests of those persons, so
                                                                      that this application raises issues closely related to those
                (Language of the case: English)                       raised in Case T-177/94 Altmann and Others .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1995 by
Peter Esmond Stott, represented by Kenneth Parker and
Rhodri Thompson , with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Cabinet Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15              Action brought on 8 August 1995 by LPN — Liga para a
Cote d'Eich .                                                         Protecção da Natureza, and by GEOTA — Grupo de
                                                                      Estudos do Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( Case T-155/95 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 28 December 1994                                          ( 95/C 286/37 )
     addressed to the applicant,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— order the Commission to direct the Director of the JET
     Joint Undertaking to take steps necessary to enable the
     applicant to become a temporary employee of the                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Commission in accordance with Article 8 ( 5 ) of the              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Statutes of the JET Joint Undertaking without requiring          Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1995 by
     the applicant first to vacate his current post at JET or to       LPN — Liga para a Protecção de Natureza, whose registered
     apply for any other post at JET,                                 office is at 187 Estrada do Calhariz de Benfica , Lisbon,
                                                                      represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui
— order the Commission to pay compensation to the                     Amendoeira and Paula Gomes Freire, of the Lisbon Bar, and
     applicant in relation to the difference in his terms and         whose chambers are at 27 Ave. Antonio de Aguiar, 2nd Floor
     conditions of employment resulting from the failure of            Rt. , Lisbon, and by GEOTA — Grupo de Estudos do
     the Director of JET to act on the letter addressed to the         Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente, whose
     JET Director from the applicant dated 16 May 1994 ,               registered office is at 17 — c/v Rt., Travessa Moinho de
     and                                                               Vento, Lisbon, represented by Jose Cunhal Sendim, of the
                                                                       Lisbon Bar, and whose chambers are at 10, Ave . Afonso
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .                  Costa , 11 th Floor Rt. , Lisbon.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/ 16          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                28 . 10 . 95
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              adopted pursuant thereto, in particular, Article 7 of
                                                                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2080/83 of 20 July
                                                                         1993 .
annul Commission Decision No CF 94/ 10/65/005 of
21 December 1994 granting a contribution from the
Cohesion Fund for the project to build the New Road Bridge
over the Tagus in the Lisbon Region, Portugal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Action brought on 11 August 1995 by the European
                                                                    Association of Mozzarella Manufacturers and Others
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants rely on the following grounds in support of
                                                                                ( Case T-157/95 )
their application :
                                                                                95 /C 286/38
1 . Breach of the principles and basic regulations of
     European environmental law:                                                   (Language of the case: English)
     — The consent given to the project to build the new            An action against the Commission of the European
        bridge over the Tagus is in breach of the principles        Communities was brought before the Court of First
        embodied in Council Directive 85/337/EEC of                 Instance of the European Communities on 11 August 1995
        27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of            by the European Association of Mozzarella Manufacturers
        certain public and private projects on the                  and Others, represented by Michel Waelbroeck and Jules
        environment inasmuch as the choice ( from among             Stuyck, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        the three possible alternatives ) of location for the       Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt 8—10 .
        bridge was not made subject to an assessment with
        regard to the environmental impact, the indirect and        The applicants claim that the Court should:
        cumulative effects were not studied and the rules
        regarding public consultation were not complied             — annul the Commission's decision referred to in press
        with .
                                                                        release Nr. IP/95/558 , and
     — Consent to the project is also contrary to Article 6(3 )     — annul, to the extent necessary, the press release
        of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992                    IP/95/558 and the letter of Mr Legras to the applicants
        inasmuch as the assessment procedure in respect of               dated 10 July 1995 ,
        the impact of the project on the SPA ( Special
        Protection Area ) of the Tagus Estuary was not in           — in the alternative, and before takings its final decision,
        keeping with the aims of conservation .                          order the Commission to produce a copy of the Decision
                                                                         and of the decision approving the Selective Financial
     — Consent to the project also infringes Article 6 ( 4 ) of          Assistance Scheme,
        Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
        inasmuch as it allows the Tagus SPA to be                   — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in this
        substantially affected without the European                      action .
        Commission having been consulted in that
        connection and without relating to human health or
        public safety, or positive consequences of primary          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        importance for the environment. Even if it were to be
        considered that the last part of Article 6 ( 4 ) was not    The applicants, four companies involved in the manufacture
        applicable, consent is none the less contrary to the        and marketing of dairy products, and an association
        first part of that provision in view of the fact that       comprising those companies which has traditionally
        there were alternatives to the location of the bridge       represented the interests of its members in industrial
        which did not affect the SPA, the public interest in        matters, challenge the Commission decision not to raise
        the project was not justified and the necessary             objections to an aid to be granted by the Industrial
        compensatory measures were not ensured .                    Development Board of Northern Ireland to Leprino/Golden
                                                                    Vale for the establishment of a mozzarella production plant
     — The construction of the new bridge over the Tagus is         in Northern Ireland .
        contrary to Article 4 (4 ) of Directive 79/409/EEC
        inasmuch as disturbances in the SPA are not limited         The Lemprimo/Golden Vale joint venture will represent the
        to the least possible and are not strictly necessary .      largest single investment ever made in the Northern Ireland
                                                                    dairy industry and the applicants suspect that the proposed
 2 . Unlawfulness of the decision : Commission Decision No          £ 32 million plan will have a production capacity by far
     CF 94/10/65/005 is unlawful inasmuch as it is contrary         superior to the 18 000 tonnes announced .
     to the principle that programmes financed by the
     Structural Funds are required to be in keeping with the         Since the 1987 special framework for investment aid
     provisions of the treaties and with the instruments             relating to the manufacture and marketing of certain dairy


title: Case F-103/06 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Saintraint v Commission (Staff case — Procedure — Application for revision — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Decision of the Tribunal — Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance — No binding effect — Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Saintraint v Commission
   (Case F-103/06 REV)
   (Staff case - Procedure - Application for revision - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal - Decision of the Tribunal - Application for revision of an order removing a case from the register following discontinuance - No binding effect - Inadmissibility raised by the Tribunal of its own motion)
   2011/C 340/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Antoine Saintraint (La Paz, Bolivia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for revision by the applicant against the Order of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010, in Case F-103/06.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application for revision is dimissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant for revision is ordered to pay the costs of the Commission.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which has intervened in the action for revision, is ordered to bear its own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-431/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Hazardous waste — Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/689/EEC)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-431/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Hazardous waste - Failure of a State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/689/EEC)
   (2004/C 300/29)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-431/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond and K. Manji, assisted by M. Demetriou, Barrister) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 November 2004 Ä the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(4) and (5), 2(1), (2) and (4), 3(1) to (4), 4(1) to (3) and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive and under the EC Treaty;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one-fifth of the costs;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear four-fifths of the costs.

      (1)   OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-45/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Andreas Kainz v Pantherwerke AG (Request for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Liability for a defective product — Product manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State — Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ — Place of the event giving rise to the damage)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Andreas Kainz v Pantherwerke AG
   (Case C-45/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Liability for a defective product - Product manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State - Interpretation of the concept of ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’ - Place of the event giving rise to the damage)
   2014/C 85/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreas Kainz

      Defendant: Pantherwerke AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Liability for defective products — Goods manufactured in one Member State and sold in another Member State — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur — Situation in which the place where the damage occurred (‘Erfolgsort’) is in the State where the goods were manufactured — Interpretation of the concept of the ‘place of the event giving rise to [the damage]’ (‘Handlungsort’).

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a manufacturer faces a claim of liability for a defective product, the place of the event giving rise to the damage is the place where the product in question was manufactured.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-737/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/42

         Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products v Commission
   (Case T-737/15)
   (2016/C 059/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and K. Dingemann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, European Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and the limitation of energy-intensive users, C(2014) 8786 final;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: No State resources
               The applicant submits that the defendant erred in taking the view that the exception in favour of energy-intensive users laid down in the EEG-Act 2012 involved the use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The EEG-surcharge is paid only by private persons and the resources collected also cannot be attributed to the State because of the absence of permanent control and the associated impossibility of actual access for the authorities.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Absence of selectivity
               The applicant asserts that the special compensation rule (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung, ‘the BesAR’) is not selective — as required by Article 107(1) TFEU –, but constitutes an exception which is logical and inherent in the regulatory system of the EEG-Act.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant established, with respect to the applicant, a legitimate expectation because it failed to examine, in the light of the law on aid, the EEG-Act — of which it was aware — for more than ten years. In addition, the defendant refrained from making recoveries of comparable aid in other Member States.


title: Order of the President of Court of First Instance of 29 April 2002 in Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola v European Investment Bank (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Absence)

text:
C 180/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 29 April 2002
                         of 18 April 2002
                                                                            in Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola v European Invest-
                                                                                ment Bank
in Case T-238/00: International and European Public
Services Organisation (IPSO) and the Union of Staff of                      (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a
the European Central Bank (USE) v European Central                                         measure — Urgency — Absence)
                              Bank (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/42)
(European Central Bank — Refusal to amend the conditions                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
of employment and the rules applicable to the staff —
     Unions — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
                                                                            In Case T-300/01 R, Carlo de Nicola, resident in Rome,
                                                                            represented by L. Isola, lawyer, against European Investment
                                                                            Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —
                          (2002/C 180/41)                                   application for suspension of the operation of the decision of
                                                                            the European Investment Bank dismissing the applicant — the
                                                                            President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                   (Language of the case: German)                           29 April 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-238/00: International and European Public Services
Organisation (IPSO), established in Frankfurt am Main, Ger-
many, and the Union of Staff of the European Central Bank
(USE), established in Frankfurt am Main, represented by
Christian Roth, Tanja Raab-Rhein and Michael Roth, Rechtsan-                Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &
wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                   Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in
European Central Bank (Agents: J. M. Fernández Martı́n,                          the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
J. Sánchez Santiago and B. Wägenbaur) — application for
annulment of the decision of the Vice-President of the                                               (Case T-146/02)
European Central Bank of 7 July 2000 refusing to consider the
requests submitted by the applicants seeking the amendment                                           (2002/C 180/43)
of certain provisions of the conditions of employment of the
staff at the European Central Bank and of the rules applicable                                (Language of the case: German)
to the staff of the European Central Bank — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 18 April 2002, the operative part of which is as                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
follows:                                                                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
                                                                            2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
                                                                            Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K.Brandt, A. Franke,
                                                                            U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
                                                                            lawyers.
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred
      by the defendant.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —    annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                      Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 724/
                                                                                1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
                                                                                number 573 725, in so far as it relates to goods in
                                                                                Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                                                                                following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;


title: Action brought on 10 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-319/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 333/7
      contested decision was adopted, reserving the use of the            by the Commission of the European Communities,
      name feta solely to cheese produced from sheep and/or               represented by James Macdonald Flett, member of the Legal
      goat's milk by the natural straining method compatible,             Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      for the purposes of the case under review, with                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
      Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty ?                              Centre Wagner.
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
Action brought on 10 October 1995 by the Commission of                           administrative provisions necessary to comply with
          the European Communities against Ireland                               Council Directives 92/45/EEC ('), 92/46/EEC ( 2 ),
                           ( Case C-3 18/95 )                                    92/65/EEC ( 3 ), 92/ 116/EEC (4 ), 92/117/EEC ( 5 ) and
                             ( 95/C 333/ 11 )                                    92/118/EEC ( 6 ) Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the Directives and under the Treaty; and
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 1995                    2 . order Ireland to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by James Macdonald Flett, member of the Legal
Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Centre Wagner.
                                                                          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                              be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                          Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or             Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
      Council Directive 92/ 119/EEC of 17 December 1992                   1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
      introducing general Community measures for the                      necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the
                                                                          conclusions of the Commission .
      control of certain animal diseases and specific measures
      relating to swine vesicular disease ( ! ) Ireland has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under the
                                                                          (') Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on public health
      Treaty; and                                                               and animal health problems relating to the killing of wild game
                                                                                and the placing on the market of wild-game meat ( OJ No L 268 ,
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                            14 . 9 . 1992 , p. 35 ).
                                                                          (2 ) Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the
                                                                                health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products ( OJ No L 268 ,
                                                                                14 . 9 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall               ( 3 ) Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                          animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                       the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                         to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 October                         rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive 90/425/EEC ( OJ No
1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                              L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p. 54 ).
                                                                          (4 ) Council Directive 92/1 1 6/EEC of 1 7 December 1 992 amending
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the                       and updating Directive 71 / 118/EEC on health problems
conclusions of the Commission .
                                                                                affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat ( OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 ,
                                                                                p. 1 ).
( ] ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 .                                ( 5 ) Council Directive        92/ 117/EEC     of   17 December     1992
                                                                                concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses
                                                                                and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal
                                                                                origin in order to prevent outbreaks to food-borne infections
                                                                                and intoxications ( OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 ).
                                                                          ( 6 ) Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying
                                                                                down animal health and public health requirements governing
                                                                                trade in and imports into the Community of products not
Action brought on 10 October 1995 by the Commission of                          subject to the said requirements laid down in specific
           the European Communities against Ireland                             Community rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive
                           ( Case C-3 19/95                                     89/662/EEC and , as regards pathogens, to Directive
                                                                                90/425/EEC ( OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 49 ).
                              ( 95/C 333/ 12 )
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 1995


title: Case C-314/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2012 — UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Munich (Germany), Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2012 — UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Munich (Germany), Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-314/12)
   2012/C 303/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in the appeal proceedings and defendant: UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH, Vienna

      Respondents in the appeal proceedings and plaintiffs: Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Munich, Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft mbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) (the Information Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that a person who makes protected subject-matter available on the internet without the rightholder’s consent (Article 3(2) of the Information Directive) is using the services of the access providers of persons seeking access to that protected subject-matter?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Are reproduction for private use (Article 5(2)(b) of the Information Directive) and transient and incidental reproduction (Article 5(1) of the Information Directive) permissible only if the original of the reproduction was lawfully reproduced, distributed or made available to the public?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question or the second question is in the affirmative and an injunction is therefore to be issued against the user’s access provider in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Information Directive: Is it compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights, to quite simply prohibit an access provider from allowing its customers access to a certain website (without ordering specific measures) as long as the material available on that website is provided exclusively or predominantly without the rightholder’s consent, if the access provider can avoid incurring preventive penalties for breach of the prohibition by showing that it had nevertheless taken all reasonable measures?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the negative: Is it compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights, to require an access provider to take specific measures to make it more difficult for its customers to access a website containing material that is made available unlawfully if those measures require not inconsiderable costs and can easily be circumvented without any special technical knowledge?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).


title: Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale — Italy) — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3 (Sixth VAT Directive — Reverse charge procedure — Right to deduct — Time-bar — Irregularity in accounts and tax returns affecting transactions subject to the reverse charge procedure)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale — Italy) — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3
   (Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Reverse charge procedure - Right to deduct - Time-bar - Irregularity in accounts and tax returns affecting transactions subject to the reverse charge procedure)
   (2008/C 158/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria provinciale
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ecotrade SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria provinciale — Interpretation of Articles 17, 18(1)(d), 21(1) and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of valued added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct upstream VAT — National provision making the exercise of the right to a deduction dependent on compliance with a two-year time limit
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 17, 18(2) and (3) and 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2000/17/EC of 30 March 2000, do not preclude national legislation which lays down a limitation period for the exercise of the right to deduct, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. The principle of effectiveness is not infringed merely because the tax authority has a longer period in which to recover unpaid value added tax than the period granted to taxable persons for the exercise of their right to deduct.

               2.

               However, Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2000/17, do preclude a practice whereby tax returns are reassessed and value added tax recovered which penalises misapprehension, first, of obligations arising from formalities laid down in national legislation pursuant to Article 18(1)(d), and, second, of the obligations relating to accounts and tax returns under Article 22(2) and (4) respectively, such as that in the main proceedings, by denying the right to deduct in the case of a reverse charge procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-707/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/15

         Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
   (Case T-707/13)
   2014/C 61/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 31/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 9, 11 and 18 — Community trade mark No 8 666 083

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-585/13: Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff JBG Ingenieure)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/27

         Action brought on 8 November 2013 — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure v OHIM — Gauff (Gauff JBG Ingenieure)
   (Case T-585/13)
   2014/C 24/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: G. Schneider-Rothhaar, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2013 (Case R 596/2013-1);

               —

               refer the case back to OHIM, recommending that it proceed to restitutio in integrum;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘Gauff JBG Ingenieure’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 11, 19, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 992 967

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and Community word mark ‘Gauff’ and German figurative mark and Community figurative mark ‘GAUFF’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum and rejection of the appeal as inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-435/01: Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 17/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.1.2002
residing in Frankfurt am Main, Marc van de Velde, member of             A)   Do Article 39 EC (formerly Article 48 of the EC Treaty)
staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Usingen-                     and Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1)
Kransberg, Germany, and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, member                     of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
of staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am              movement for workers within the Community permit a
Main, represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer                Member State to reserve the posts of captain and first
— appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of                 officer of its merchant ships to its own nationals? If the
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October                      reply is in the affirmative, may that reservation be
2000 in Case T-27/00 Staff Committee of the ECB and Others                   formulated in absolute terms (for all types of merchant
v ECB [2000] ECR-SC I-A-217 and II-987, seeking to have                      ships) or is it valid only in cases in which it is foreseeable
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being               and reasonable that it may be necessary for captains and
European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli, V. Saintot and                    first officers on board actually to carry out certain public
M. López Torres) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                  duties?
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
                                                                        B)   If the national provisions of a Member State exclude from
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 September 2001,
                                                                             the reservation of those posts to its nationals certain
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                             commercial shipping situations (defined on the basis of
                                                                             factors such as the gross tonnage of the ship, the cargo
                                                                             or number of passengers and the characteristics of its
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                               voyages) and, in those situations, allow citizens of other
                                                                             Member States of the European Union to have access to
                                                                             the posts in question, may that access be made subject to
2.    The Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Mr Priese-           the condition of reciprocity?
      mann, Mr Van de Velde and Ms Cerafogli shall pay the costs.
                                                                        (1) OJ English Special Edition 1968(II) P. 475.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                        Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities against the
                                                                                Kingdom of Belgium
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Division                                         (Case C-435/01)
of the Sala De Lo Contencioso-administrativo by order of
that court of 4 October 2001 in the case of Colegio de
Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española, the State                                              (2002/C 17/13)
Administration and Asociación de Navieros Españoles
                             (ANAVE)
                         (Case C-405/01)                                An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
                          (2002/C 17/12)                                Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  1.   declare that, by failing within the time-limits prescribed
European Communities by an order of the Third Division of                    to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
the Sala De Lo Contencioso-administrativo (Chamber for                       provisions necessary to comply fully and correctly with
Contentious-Administrative Proceedings), which was received                  Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1)
at the Court Registry on 15 October 2001, for a preliminary                  concerning integrated pollution prevention and control,
ruling in the case of Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante             or at any rate to notify the same to the Commission, the
Española, the State Administration and Asociación de Navieros              Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Españoles (ANAVE), on the following questions:                              under that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/9
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                          in Case C-435/01 (3); the time-limit prescribed in Article 2 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Directive 98/81/EC expired on 5 June 2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 L 93, p. 27.
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC is            (2) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1.
such as to require Member States to whom directives are                   (3) See page 8 of this Official Journal.
addressed to adopt the measures needed to comply with them
before the expiry of the time-limit prescribed in such directives.
The time-limit prescribed in Article 21(1) of Directive 96/61
expired on 30 October 1999 but the Kingdom of Belgium has
not adopted the requisite provisions.
(1) OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                                                                                ic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-450/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/15)
Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Com-                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
mission of the European Communities against the                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 No-
                        Kingdom of Belgium                                vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
                          (Case C-436/01)
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 17/14)                                 —      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
                                                                                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                                1999/8/EC (1) of 18 February 1999 amending Council
                                                                                Directive 66/402/EEC on the marketing of cereal seed,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       under the Treaty and that directive;
12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent.                 —      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    declare that, by failing within the time-limits prescribed
      to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive               directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      98/81/EC (1) of 26 October 1998 amending Directive                  each Member State to which they are addressed.
      90/219/EEC (2) on the contained use of genetically modi-
      fied micro-organisms, or at any rate to notify the same to
      the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                          to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                          or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Community.


title: Case T-278/07 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in Case F-2/06, Luigi Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/55

         Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in Case F-2/06, Luigi Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-278/07 P)
   (2007/C 211/103)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought by the appellant
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               in any event, set aside the order under appeal in its entirety;

               —

               uphold the forms of order sought by the applicant at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to reimburse all costs, fees and charges incurred by the appellant for the purposes of these proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for judgment.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, it is sought to have set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in Case F-2/06 Marcuccio v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible the action brought by the applicant.
   The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

               —

               the Civil Service Tribunal distorted the clear sense of the facts and of the statements made by the applicant in his written pleadings at first instance. On that point, it is emphasised in particular that the physical existence of the decision at issue in the proceedings at first instance is clear without a shadow of a doubt from the text of the Commission's note of 29 July 2005, which provides for the possibility of reopening at any given moment a file that had been shelved. The reference to that possibility leaves no doubt, not only that the decision at issue had actually been taken, but also that it had actually been carried out;

               —

               it is an error in law for a court to make an order ruling that an action is manifestly inadmissible — a fortiori on grounds of public policy such as the absence of any act adversely affecting the interests of the applicant in the case of an action for annulment — following an attempt to reach an amicable settlement, and all the more so when no specific grounds, directly related to the facts of the case, are stated for so doing;

               —

               the appellant's rights of defence were irreparably damaged in that, not having been informed of the progress of the case, he was unable to do anything to strengthen his defence of his own reasons. On that point, it is maintained that the note by which the Civil Service Tribunal informed the appellant of the implementation of the attempt at settlement was not followed by any other communication, whether in writing or in any other form, concerning the progress of the case, far less concerning the outcome of the attempt to reach an amicable settlement. Furthermore, the Civil Service Tribunal made the order under appeal more than six months after that attempt. As if that were not enough, there is no mention in the order under appeal of the attempt to reach an amicable settlement;

               —

               lastly, the appellant maintains that the order under appeal is vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons, as well as by the incorrect and misconceived application of the notion of a decision adversely affecting the applicant's interests.


title: Case C-388/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht lodged on 2 October 2009 — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht lodged on 2 October 2009 — Joao Filipe da Silva Martins v Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse
   (Case C-388/09)
   2009/C 312/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joao Filipe da Silva Martins

      Defendant: Bank Betriebskrankenkasse — Pflegekasse

      Question referred

   Is it compatible with the primary and/or secondary law of the European Community on freedom of movement and social security for migrant workers (in particular Articles 39 and 42 EC and Articles 27 and 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) for a former worker who receives pensions from both his former State of employment and his home State and acquired an entitlement to care allowance in his former State of employment because he is reliant on care to forfeit the entitlement to care allowance after returning to his home State?

      (1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 August 2001 in Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (Procedure for interim relief — Suspension from duties — Fumus boni juris — Urgency — None)

text:
22.12.2001            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 369/13
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                           INSTANCE
                       of 9 August 2001                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                          in Case T-216/01 (ReiseBank AG v Commission, not yet
                                                                          published).
in Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola v European Invest-
                           ment Bank
(Procedure for interim relief — Suspension from duties —
           Fumus boni juris — Urgency — None)
                        (2001/C 369/20)
                                                                          Action brought on 18 September 2001 by Alcon Univer-
                                                                          sal Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      Market
                                                                                (Case T-237/01)
In Case T-120/01 R: Carlo De Nicola, residing in Rome,
represented by L. Isola, avocat, against European Investment
Bank (Agents: C. Gómez de la Cruz and C. Camilli) —                                              (2001/C 369/22)
application for suspension of the operation of a number of
measures adopted by the EIB concerning the applicant — the                                  (Language of the case: English)
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
9 August 2001, in which he:
1.   Dismissed the application for interim relief;                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
2.   Ordered that the costs be reserved.                                  European Communities on 18 September 2001 by Alcon
                                                                          Universal Ltd, represented by Hamish Porter of Theodore
                                                                          Goddard, London (United Kingdom).
                                                                          A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                          was Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commerz-
bank AG against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             munities
                                                                          —     .annul the decision of 18 July 2001 of the Board of
                        (Case T-219/01)                                         Appeal in case R0273/2000-1 and require the Office to
                                                                                refuse the cancellation of the Community trade mark.
                        (2001/C 369/21)
                                                                          —     order the Office to pay the costs.
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Commerz-
bank AG, Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by
H. Satzky and B. Maassen, Rechtsanwälte.                                  Proprietor of the Com-        Alcon Universal Ltd.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Community trade           word mark ‘BSS’ for certain goods
                                                                          mark concerned:               in class 5 (registration no 90134)
—    annul the Commission Decision of 17 August 2001 in
     Case COMP/E-1/37.919 addressed to the applicant relat-               Applicant for the declar-     Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.
     ing to the refusal of a supplementary request to see                 ation for invalidity:
     documents;
                                                                          Decision of the Cancel-       Invalidity of the Community trade
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                               lation Division:              mark