title: Case T-83/11: Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax ItM v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/16

         Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax ItM v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)
   (Case T-83/11)
   2011/C 113/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heating Company BVBA (The) (Dilsen, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010, in so far as it declared Community design No 000593959-0001 invalid;

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs incurred by The Heating Company BVBA in the proceedings before OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM and The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It SRL the costs, dues and legal fees relating to the present proceedings, together with any additional sums required by law;

               —

               order The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, dues and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM, together with any additional sums required by law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 000593959/0001 (Radiators for heating)

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The Heating Company BVBA

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The contested Community design does not meet the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 9 of the Community Designs Regulation (CDR), since it lacks distinctive characteristics when compared with German design No 5 covered by the multiple registration No 401 10481.8, published upon application by The Heating Company BVBA and valid in France, Italy and the Benelux as international design No DM/060899

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: To declare the Community design invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To annul the contested decision and declare the Community design invalid

      Pleas in law: The individual character of Community design No 000593959-0001


title: Case T-268/15: Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/41

         Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Apcoa Parking Holdings v OHIM (PARKWAY)
   (Case T-268/15)
   (2015/C 245/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: A. Lohmann, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PARKWAY’ — Application No 12 567 021

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 March 2015 in Case R 2063/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

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

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-338/05: Action brought on  9 September 2005  — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/27

         Action brought on 9 September 2005 — Raymond Claudel v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-338/05)
   (2005/C 296/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Raymond Claudel (Merl, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Court of Auditors
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul paragraph 17(d) of the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 11 November 2004 (DEC 183/04/DEF), which does not acknowledge that the applicant carried out the duties of Head of Unit on 30 April 2004;

               —

               award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 5 000, subject to an increase during the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an official at the Court of Auditors in charge of the external relations service. By his action, he disputes the decision of the Court of Auditors, in so far as it does not recognise that he exercises the duties of Head of Unit and, accordingly, does not recognise that he is entitled to the bonus provided for in Article 44 of the Staff Regulations, as amended after 1 May 2004.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 44 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 7 of Annex XIII thereto, and also a manifest error of assessment in the description of his post. He also claims that there has been a breach of the duty to state reasons, of the principle of equal t4eatment, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and also of the principle of sound administration. The applicant also claims damages for the harm which he alleges to have been sustained.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-381/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance, Nivelles): Belgocodex SA v. Belgian State (First and Sixth VAT Directives - Letting and leasing of immovable property - Right to opt for taxation)

text:
23.1.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 20/15
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 It is for the national court to determine whether a breach
                                                                    of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations or
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                    of the principle of legal certainty has been committed by
                    of 3 December 1998                              the retroactive repeal of a law in respect of which the
                                                                    implementing decree has not been adopted.
in Case C-381/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance, Nivelles): Belgocodex
                    SA v. Belgian State (1)                         (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
(First and Sixth VAT Directives Ð Letting and leasing of
     immovable property Ð Right to opt for taxation)
                        (1999/C 20/23)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 November 1998
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                    in Case C-162/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
         published in the European Court Reports)                   the Oberlandesgericht Köln): appeal brought by
                                                                      Hans-Jürgen Hartmann against an administrative fine (1)
In Case C-381/97, reference to the Court under Article 177          (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de           between certain Member States under Article 8 of
Nivelles (Belgium) in the proceedings pending before that            Directive 93/89/EEC Ð Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
court between: Belgocodex SA and Belgian State Ð
                                                                                (1999/C 20/24)
application for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation
of Article 2 of the First Council Directive (67/227/EEC) of
11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English
Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 13C of the
Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1997 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value                           published in the European Court Reports)
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145,
13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the First Chamber,
                                                                    In Case C-162/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Köln
de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,
                                                                    (Germany) for a preliminary ruling, in the appeal against
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                    an administrative fine brought before that court by
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                    Hans-Jürgen Hartmann, on the interpretation of
3 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                    Article 4(1) of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 on the
                                                                    levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy
                                                                    commercial vehicles, concluded between the governments
Article 2 of the First Council Directive (67/227/EEC) of            of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of
11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of                Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of
Member States concerning turnover taxes is to be                    Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
interpreted as not precluding a Member State which                  (Bundesgesetzblatt 1994, Part II, p. 1768) Ð the Court
                                                                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and
Ð has availed itself of the possibility provided for by             H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
    Article 13C of the Sixth Council Directive                      Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
    (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation                on 12 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
    of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover           follows:
    taxes Ð Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment, and
                                                                    The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the
                                                                    reference for a preliminary ruling made by the
Ð has thus granted its taxpayers the right to opt for               Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of 13 March 1998.
    taxation of certain lettings of immovable property
                                                                    (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
from abolishing, by a subsequent law, that right of option
and thus reintroducing the exemption.


title: Case T-413/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/36

         Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case T-413/05)
   (2006/C 48/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the applicant's career development report (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001 — 31.12.2002;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant first submits that Article 26 of the Staff Regulations has been infringed, on the ground that his staff report is not physically present in his personal file, but is stored in electronic form and that there is no sign of the first version of that report either in the paper file or in the electronic file.
   The applicant also claims infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, of the General Implementing Provisions for that latter article and of the Appraisal Guide and the special guide for the 2001-2002 exercise, on account of the fact that the appraisers are required by the Commission to comply with a ‘target’ average in respect of appraisal.
   The applicant next submits that the system of merit points, established by the Commission, makes it possible to classify equally a number of officials with varying levels of performance which, in the applicant's view, infringes the principle of equal treatment.
   Lastly, the applicant claims breach of the prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of the duty to state reasons, an abuse of powers, breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti (abide by your own rules) and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials.


title: Case T-773/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/31

         Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
   (Case T-773/15)
   (2016/C 078/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY’ — Application for registration No 6 065 403

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases R 733/2015-2 and R 780/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R-0780/2015-2 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 23 February 2015 in Opposition No. B 1312208 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;

               —

               accept the CTM Application No 006065403 for registration;

               —

               order the Defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks;

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks;

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity or similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks; and

               —

               The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier marks and the Applicant’s Mark.


title: Case T-401/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark JUNGBORN — Earlier national word mark BORN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN)
   (Case T-401/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark JUNGBORN - Earlier national word mark BORN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 245/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (Unterhaching, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2012 (Case R 936/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG and Robert Klingel OHG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 59, 6.3.2004

text:
20.3.2004         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         C 71/45
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2004/C 71/81)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 59, 6.3.2004
          Past publications
          OJ C 47, 21.2.2004
          OJ C 35, 7.2.2004
          OJ C 21, 24.1.2004
          OJ C 7, 10.1.2004
          OJ C 304, 13.12.2003
          OJ C 289, 29.11.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-219/06: Action brought on 17 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM (map&guide travelbook)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/13

         Action brought on 17 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM (map&guide travelbook)
   (Case T-219/06)
   (2006/C 237/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 June 2006 (Appeal case number: R 1174/2005-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘map&guide travelbook’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42.

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial dismissal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The mark applied for does have distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-367/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia and Others v European Commission (Fisheries — Conservation of fish stocks — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Measures prohibiting fishing activities of purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece — Actions for annulment — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Rate of exhaustion of quotas per State and per purse seiner — True catch capacity)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-367/10) (1)

   (Fisheries - Conservation of fish stocks - Recovery plan for bluefin tuna - Measures prohibiting fishing activities of purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece - Actions for annulment - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Rate of exhaustion of quotas per State and per purse seiner - True catch capacity)
   2013/C 108/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece); Chrisderic (Saint-Cyprien, France); André Sébastien Fortassier (Grau-d’Agde, France) (represented: initially by V. Akritidis and E. Petritsi, lawyers, and subsequently by V. Akritidis and F. Crespo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, A. Bouquet and D. Nardi, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 498/2010 of 9 June 2010 prohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of France or Greece or registered in France or Greece, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2010 L 142, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bloufin Touna Ellas Naftiki Etaireia, Chrisderic and André Sébastien Fortassier to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case F-125/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — Schuerewegen v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Measure removing the applicant from his place of work — Withdrawal of his staff card — Withdrawal of his rights of access to the IT network — Prior complaint — Sent by electronic means — Administration actually aware of it — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — Schuerewegen v Parliament
   (Case F-125/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Measure removing the applicant from his place of work - Withdrawal of his staff card - Withdrawal of his rights of access to the IT network - Prior complaint - Sent by electronic means - Administration actually aware of it - Out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 232/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniel Schuerewegen (Marienthal, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and E. Despotopoulou, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the appointing authority’s decision by which the applicant was removed from his place of work and his staff card withdrawn, and also of the measures taken as a result of that decision and a claim for damages

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;.

               2.

               Orders Mr Schuerewegen to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30 of 29/1/11, p. 68.


title: Case T-65/15: Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Talanton v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/55

         Action brought on 6 February 2015 — Talanton v Commission
   (Case T-65/15)
   (2015/C 138/72)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki — Ekpaideftiki Etairia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketigk kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (Talanton SA Business Consulting and Marketing Services) (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: K Damis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               instruct an expert report, in order that there should be examined the reported finding in the audit report of the external auditor, which was wrongly accepted by the European Commission, that there is a ‘lack of alternative evidence to confirm the requested personnel costs’. That factor is of crucial importance to the outcome of the case, since the personnel costs represent the greater part of the eligible costs and incorporate all the indirect costs;·

               —

               declare, first, that the debit note No 3241414916 which was sent to the applicant on 10/12/2014 and in which the Commission requested the return of two hundred and seventy three thousand, five hundred and thirty five euros and 38 cents (EUR 2 73  535,38) for the agreement for the FP-7216088 POCEMON project on the basis of the erroneous and inaccurate audit report 11-ΒΑ135-006 is in breach of the Commission’s contractual obligations, and, second, that the costs which the applicant submitted within the framework of the agreement concerned are eligible costs and consequently the Commission is obliged to issue a credit note for one hundred and twenty nine thousand, seven hundred and sixty four euros and 38 cents (EUR 1 29  764,38).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea is based on the arbitration clause:

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that from its detailed reasoning in this action it is apparent that there is a causal link between the facts which are reported in the audit report and the conclusions of the external auditor which were groundlessly accepted by the Commission notwithstanding all the reasoned objections (of the applicant) which were not examined. That detailed reasoning rebuts all the positions of the external auditor and consequently the Commission should revise its conclusions and accept the applicant’s costs.

               2.

               The second plea is based on the performance of a contract in good faith and the prohibition on the abusive application of contractual terms:

                           —

                           first, the applicant maintains that it was not granted the legal right to submit directly to the auditor appointed by the Commission its objections and to clarify the unsupported arguments of the author of the draft audit report. This is particularly important, given that the partiality of the external auditor against the applicant and the errors of the external auditor are at issue.

                           —

                           second, the applicant maintains that the external auditor’s draft audit report was accepted by the Commission without any examination and rejection by argument of the lawful and detailed claims of the applicant, and of the supplementary material which was submitted. The draft audit report was reproduced in the Audit Report 11-BA135-006/22.1.2013 in the POCEMON project agreement No FP7-216088, which incorrectly reports that there was a lack of alternative evidence in relation to the claimed personnel costs. The assessment of the external auditor is arbitrary and unjustified, given that there was produced as evidence a large quantity of alternative evidence and a large number of sworn statements of all those working on the project, and accordingly the Commission decision at issue which groundlessly accepted the assessment of the external auditor is in error.


title: Case T-382/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2011 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VOGUE — Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal — Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2011 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE)
   (Case T-382/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal - Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 63/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda (Porto, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2002 in Case T-143/93: K. Schumacher v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion undertakings — Proceedings not continued by successors — No need to adjudicate)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 156/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 March 2002
                                                                                of 24 January 2002
in Case T-143/93: K. Schumacher v Council of the Euro-
pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties (1)
                                                                          in Case T-38/95 DEP: Groupe Origny SA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk
— Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion
undertakings — Proceedings not continued by successors —
                     No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
                         (2002/C 156/43)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/44)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-143/93: K. Schumacher, residing in Kiel (Germany),
represented by C. Paulsen and P. Paulsen, Rechtanwälte, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß,
M. Niejahr, H.-J. Rabe and Núñez-Müller) — application for
compensation pursuant to Articles 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 235               In Case T-38/95: Groupe Origny SA, established in Paris,
EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss               represented by X. de Roux, lawyer, with an address for service
suffered by the applicant as a result of having been prevented            in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                  (Agent: R. Lyal) — application for taxation of the costs to be
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                 paid by the defendant to the applicant pursuant to the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation           judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-25/
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ                  95, T-26/95, T-30 to T-32/95, T-34 to T-39/95, T-42 to T-46/
1984 L 93, p. 13), supplemented by Commission Regulation                  95, T-48/95, T-50 to T-65/95, T-68 to T-71/95, T-87/95,
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11)                    T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 [2000] ECR II-491), the
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                   Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
Composition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President                     sition), composed of: M. Jaegar, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2002, the                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has made an order on
operative part of which is as follows:                                    24 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
                                                                          The amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case T-38/95 is
                                                                          fixed at EUR 106 714,31 (FRF 700 000).
2.   The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 119 of 13.5.1995.
(1) OJ C 146 of 5.6.1991.


title: Case T-289/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2010 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM (Deutsche BKK) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Deutsche BKK — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character and no distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 73 and Article 74(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 76(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2010 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM (Deutsche BKK)
   (Case T-289/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Deutsche BKK - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character and no distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 73 and Article 74(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 76(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 80/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche BKK (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2008 (Case R 318/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Deutsche Betriebskrankenkasse (Deutsche BKK) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-341/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet (Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers in the construction industry — National legislation laying down terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g), save for minimum rates of pay — Collective agreement for the building sector the terms of which lay down more favourable conditions or relate to other matters — Possibility for trade unions to attempt, by way of collective action, to force undertakings established in other Member States to negotiate on a case by case basis in order to determine the rates of pay for workers and to sign the collective agreement for the building sector)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet
   (Case C-341/05) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers in the construction industry - National legislation laying down terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g), save for minimum rates of pay - Collective agreement for the building sector the terms of which lay down more favourable conditions or relate to other matters - Possibility for trade unions to attempt, by way of collective action, to force undertakings established in other Member States to negotiate on a case by case basis in order to determine the rates of pay for workers and to sign the collective agreement for the building sector)
   (2008/C 51/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Arbetsdomstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laval un Partneri Ltd

      Defendants: Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbetsdomstolen — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC and of Articles 3(1); 3(7); 3(8); 3(10) and Article 4 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Collective action against a construction company which supplied paid workers in a Member State other than that of its head office and which did not enter into a collective agreement in that State.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 49 EC and Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services are to be interpreted as precluding a trade union, in a Member State in which the terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g) of that directive are contained in legislative provisions, save for minimum rates of pay, from attempting, by means of collective action in the form of a blockade ('blockad') of sites such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to force a provider of services established in another Member State to enter into negotiations with it on the rates of pay for posted workers and to sign a collective agreement the terms of which lay down, as regards some of those matters, more favourable conditions than those resulting from the relevant legislative provisions, while other terms relate to matters not referred to in Article 3 of the directive;

               2)

               Where there is a prohibition in a Member State against trade unions undertaking collective action with the aim of having a collective agreement between other parties set aside or amended, Articles 49 EC and 50 EC preclude that prohibition from being subject to the condition that such action must relate to terms and conditions of employment to which the national law applies directly.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case F-88/07: Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Dominguez Gonzalez v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/34

         Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Dominguez Gonzalez v Commission
   (Case F-88/07)
   (2008/C 37/56)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Juan Luís Domínguez González (Girona, Spain) (represented by: R. Nicolazzi Angelats, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 20 310,68 for damages, not including material and personal damages, and the costs of the application;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks compensation for damages, which, according to the applicant, arise from the Commission's decision of 20 July 1999 to terminate his contract with the Humanitarian Aid Department of the European Community (ECHO) that he signed on 1 July 1999 after passing the medical examination provided for in the contract.
   In support of his application the applicant claims principally that:

               —

               the contract was terminated on the basis of an examination of his medical problems which was conducted without using up to date information and therefore without taking account of his current state of health;

               —

               he did not receive any answer to the series of letters sent to the responsible persons at ECHO in order to rectify the earlier error.

               —

               the Commission breached the terms of the contract stipulating that it could enter into force only when the employee's state of health had been positively evaluated.

               —

               the Commission infringed his rights of defence.


title: Case T-343/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Joint control — Fines — Aggravating circumstances — Role of instigator and leader — Repeated infringement — Duration of the infringement — Rights of the defence — Unlimited jurisdiction — Conduct of the undertaking during the administrative procedure)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission
   (Case T-343/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Joint control - Fines - Aggravating circumstances - Role of instigator and leader - Repeated infringement - Duration of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Unlimited jurisdiction - Conduct of the undertaking during the administrative procedure)
   2012/C 355/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Shell Petroleum NV (The Hague, Netherlands), The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented: initially by O. Brouwer, W. Knibbeler and S. Verschuur, and subsequently by O. Brouwer, W. Knibbeler and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) in so far as it concerns the applicants, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(l) of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) in so far as it sets the fine imposed on Shell Petroleum NV, The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd and Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV at EUR 108 million;

               2.

               Reduces the fine imposed on Shell Petroleum, The Shell Transport and Trading Company and Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij by Article 2(l) of that decision to EUR 81 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 October 1997 in Case T-331/94: IPK-München GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project - Reduction - Application for annulment - Admissibility - Confirmatory act - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Statement of reasons)

text:
C 387/ 14                 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 12 . 97
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in
                          of 15 October 1997                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
                                                                       Rue v. Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-331/94 : IPK-München GmbH v. Commission of                   ( Agents : initially Norbert Lorenz and Géraud de Bergues,
                  the European Communities (')                         then Klaus Wiedner and Heinz-Joachim Freund ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Commission Decision
(Financial assistance for an ecological tourism project —
                                                                       94/210/EC of 29 March 1994 relating to a proceeding
Reduction — Application for annulment — Admissibility
                                                                       pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty ( IV/
— Confirmatory act — Legal certainty — Legitimate
                                                                       33.941 — HOV-SVZ/MCN, OJ L 104, 23 . 4 . 1994, p. 34 )
             expectations — Statement of reasons)                      or, in the alternative , the annulment or reduction of the
                             ( 97/C 387/22                             fine imposed by that decision on the applicant — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
                                                                       Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, A.
                 (Language of the case: German)                        Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
                                                                       Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator for the Registrar;
                                                                       has given a judgment on 15 October 1997, in which it:
In Case T-331 /94: IPK-München GmbH, established in
Munich ( Germany ), represented by Hans-Joachim Priess,
of the Brussels Bar, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels v.
 Commission of the European Communities, ( Agent:                       1 . dismisses the application;
Jürgen Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the
 Commission's decision of 3 August 1994 not to pay the
 balance of financial assistance granted to the applicant in
 connection with a project to create a databank on                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
 ecological tourism in Europe — the Court of First Instance
 ( First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili
 and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator                  (') OJ C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October
 1997, in which it:
 1 . dismisses the application;
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  (') OJ C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                of 22 October 1997
                                                                         in Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96: Stichting
                                                                         Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK) and Federatie van
                                                                         Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven (FNK) v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1 )
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Competition — Mobile cranes — Article 6 of the
                           of 21 October 1997                            European Convention on Human Rights — Acting within
                                                                         a reasonable time — Certification system — Prohibition
  in Case T-229/94 : Deutsche Bahn AG v. Commission of                    on hiring — Recommended rates — Internal rates —
                   the European Communities (')                                                            Fines)
   (Competition — Carriage by rail of maritime containers                                             ( 97/C 387/24 )
   — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Agreements,
   decisions and concerted practices — Dominant position —
   Abuse — Fine — Criteria of assessment — Principle of
   proportionality — Rights of the defence — Access to the                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                 file — Principle of legal certainty)
                                97/C 387/23
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 : Stichting
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK ) and Federatie
                                                                           van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven ( FNK ), whose
                                                                           registered office is in Culembourg, Netherlands,
   In Case T-229/94 : Deutsche Bahn AG, established in                     represented by Martijn van Empel, of the Amsterdam . Bar,
   Frankfurt ( Germany ), represented by Jochim Sedemund,                  and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address


title: Case C-253/14 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 2014 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2014 in Case T-81/13 FTI Touristik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Appeal brought on 26 May 2014 by FTI Touristik GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 March 2014 in Case T-81/13 FTI Touristik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-253/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its order of 11 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.


title: Case C-87/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 20 February 2012 — Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga v Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration
   (Case C-87/12)
   2012/C 138/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kreshnik Ymerag, Kasim Ymeraga, Afijete Ymeraga-Tafarshiku, Kushtrim Ymeraga, Labinot Ymeraga

      Defendant: Minister for Labour, Employment and Immigration

      Question referred

   To what extent does the fact of being a citizen of the Union and the related right to reside in the country of which a Union citizen is a national, as provided for by Article 20 of the TFEU, along with the rights, guarantees and obligations laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in particular and insofar as is relevant, in Articles 20, 21, 24, 33 and 34, confer a right to family reunification upon a sponsor who is a citizen of the Union and wishes to bring about, in the country in which he resides and of which he holds the nationality, the reunification with himself of his mother and father and two of his brothers, all of whom are third-country nationals, where he has not exercised his right to free movement and has not resided in a Member State other than that of which he holds the nationality?


title: Case T-88/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a radiator grille)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/59

         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a radiator grille)
   (Case T-88/15)
   (2015/C 138/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a radiator grille — Application for registration No 1 1 8 67  173

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 December 2014 in Case R 1798/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

               —

               allow the community trade mark application no. 1 1 8 67  173 to proceed to publication;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 June 1995 in Case T-36/92 DEP: Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of recoverable costs)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            I EN I                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 208/23
established in Athens, represented by Alastair Sutton and                 K. Stefanakis and Anastassia Chatzitzani, of the Athens Bar,
Daniel Bethlehem, Barristers, of the Bar of England and                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Wales , and by Aristotelis Kaplanidis, of the Thessaloniki                of Ekaterini Thill-Kamitaki , 17 Boulevard Royal v. Council
Bar, instructed by Victor Melas, of the Athens Bar, with an               of the European Union ( Agents : John Carbery and Sophia
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                 Kyriakopoulou ), and Commission of the European
Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission of the . European                      Communities ( Agent: Xenophon A. Yataganas ), application
Communities ( agents : Xenophon A. Yataganas, Michel                      for an award of damages pursuant to Article 178 and the
Nolin, Eric White and Daniel Calleja ), supported by                      second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, the Court
Hellenic Republic ( agents : Panagiotis Kamarineas,                       of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Cruz
Panagiotis Milonopoulos and Christina Sitara ) and                        Vilaça , President, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos,
Heracles General Cement Company anonymos eteria ,                         Judges, Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, has
established at Likovrisi ( Greece ), represented by Kostas                given a judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it:
Loukopoulos and Sotiris Felios, of the Athens Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jos                  1 . dismisses the application ;
Stoffel, 21 Boulevard de Verdun , — application for the
annulment of the Decision of 1 August 1991 contained in                   2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Commission communication 92/C 1 /03 pursuant to
Article 93(2 ) of the EEC Treaty to other Member States and
interested parties concerning aid to Heracles General                     (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
Cement Company in Greece, published in the Official
Journal ofthe European Communities of 4 January 1 992 ( 2 )
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, extended
composition ), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
and B. Vesterdorf, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
Kalogeropoulos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it:                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 June 1995
1 . annuls the Decision of 1 August 1991 contained in
       Commission communication 92/C 1 /03 pursuant to                    in Case T-36/92 DEP: Syndicat français de l'Express
       Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty to other Member States            international ( SFEI ) and Others v. Commission of the
       and interested parties concerning aid to Heracles                                     European Communities (')
       General Cement Company in Greece, published in the                                  (Taxation of recoverable costs)
       Official Journal of the European Communities of                                               ( 95 /C 208/51 )
       4 January 1992 ;
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the                                (Language of the case: French)
       costs of the applicants apart from those caused by the
       interventions ;
                                                                          In Case T-36/92 DEP: Syndicat français de l'Express
3 . orders the interveners to bear their own costs and pay                international ( SFEI ), established at Roissy-Charles de
       the costs incurred by the applicants in the context of the         Gaulle ( France ), DHL International , established at
       interventions .                                                    Roissy-Charles de Gaulle ( France ), Service Crie, established
                                                                          at Paris ( France ) and May Courier, established at Paris
 (') OJ No C 121 , 13 . 5 . 1992 .                                         ( France ), represented by Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar,
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1992 , p . 4 .                                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                          of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume , v. Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and
                                                                          Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) — application for
                                                                          taxation of the recoverable costs pursuant to the order of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 composition ) of 3 October 1994 declaring that the case
                             of 6 July 1995                               should not proceed to judgment — the Court of First
in Case T-5 72/93 , Odigitria AAE v. Council of the                       Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli,
European Union and Commission of the European                              President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
                            Communities (')                                Registrar, made an order on 7 June 1995 , the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows :
  (Non-contractual liability — Omission of the Commission
 — Causal link — Applicant's fault — Duty to provide
                                                                           The total costs payable by the Commission to the applicants
                         diplomatic protection)                           are fixed in the sum of Bfrs 1 500 000, together with any
                              ( 95 /C 208/50 )                              VAT due on that sum .
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                           (') OJ No C 160 , 26 . 6 . 1992 .
 In Case T-572/93 , Odigitria AAE having its registered office
 in Athens, represented by Epameinondas Marias, Georgios


title: Case T-660/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/73

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament
   (Case T-660/15)
   (2016/C 048/81)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kristof Clerix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8327 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-350/09: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 — ICO Satellite v Commission (Actions for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Absence of excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/8

         Order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 — ICO Satellite v Commission
   (Case T-350/09) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Absence of excusable error - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 273/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ICO Satellite Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Tupper, Solicitor, D. Anderson QC, and D. Scannell, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Van Liedekerke and K. Platteau, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and G. Kimberley, acting as Agents), and Solaris Mobile Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Wheeler, Solicitor, and A. Robertson, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               ICO Satellite Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union and Solaris Mobile Ltd shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 July 2014 in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between: Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes (Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)

text:
               26.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 9 July 2014
   in Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 between:
   Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others
   and
   The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes
   (Taxation of controlled foreign companies — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Circumvention of national law — Justification — Proportionality)
   (2015/C 68/05)
   In Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13, between Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others and The Norwegian State, represented by the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises and the Directorate of Taxes — REQUESTS to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Tax Appeals Board for the Central Tax Office for Large Enterprises (Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter) and Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett), concerning the interpretation of the rules on freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, in particular the interpretation of Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, in relation to the Norwegian controlled foreign company tax legislation (‘CFC rules’) which permits national taxation of capital placed in a low-tax country, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 July 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1. – 2.

               A trust such as Ptarmigan Trust falls within the scope of Article 31 EEA provided that the trust pursues a real and genuine economic activity within the EEA for an indefinite period and through a fixed establishment. Whether this is the case is for the national court to assess. All interested parties, that is to say the trust’s settlors, trustees and beneficiaries hold the rights under Articles 31 and 34 EEA.

               3.

               Beneficiaries of capital assets set up in the form of a trust that are subject to national tax measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be able to invoke Article 40 EEA in the event that they are not found to have exercised definite influence over an independent undertaking in another EEA State or engaged in economic activity that comes within the scope of the right of establishment. It is for the national courts to make the final assessment in that regard, based on the factual circumstances of the case.

               4.

               The difference in treatment entailed by section 10-60 of the Tax Act creates a tax disadvantage for resident taxpayers to whom the legislation on controlled foreign companies applies, which is such as to hinder their exercise of freedom of establishment, dissuading them from establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in an EEA State in which the latter is subject to low levels of taxation. It therefore constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 31 and 34 EEA. If the tax disadvantage resulting from the differential treatment for resident taxpayers under section 10-60 is such as to hinder the beneficiaries from investing funds in another EEA State, without any intention to influence the control or the management of an undertaking, and from engaging in the movement of capital of a personal nature, it constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 40 EEA and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement.
               Moreover, a rule of national law entailing that, in contrast to participants in comparable domestic entities, personal participants in a controlled foreign company in another EEA State are not afforded any opportunity to undo the economic double taxation that the Norwegian CFC rules entail constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Articles 31 and 34 EEA, or, depending upon the assessment of the national court, the free movement of capital which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 40 EEA.

               5.

               A restriction on the freedom of establishment or, where applicable, the free movement of capital resulting from national CFC legislation such as that applicable in the main proceedings may be justified on grounds of overriding public interest, in particular on considerations of preventing tax avoidance or maintaining the balanced allocation of taxing powers between EEA States. The restriction is proportionate if it relates only to wholly artificial arrangements which seek to escape the national tax payable in comparable situations. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives a controlled foreign company is actually established in the host EEA State and carries on genuine economic activities, which take effect in the EEA.

               6.

               It is for the national court to determine whether the plaintiffs as beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds that are not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law. If so, the difference in tax rate constitutes a restriction under Article 31 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 40 EEA.

               7.

               The difference in tax rate cannot be justified if the beneficiaries of Ptarmigan Trust are in a comparable situation to beneficiaries of family foundations or asset funds not subject to wealth taxation under Norwegian law.


title: Case C-42/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February 2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
   (Case C-42/07)
   (2007/C 69/20)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP) and Baw International Ltd

      Defendant: Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is to say, against a provider of services established in another Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services, which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?

               2.

               Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the abovementioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a monopoly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to ‘the entire national territory, including … the internet’?


13.10.2001            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 289/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-433/99 (1)               ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austria): Margrith
                                                                    Petersilge, née Lackner v Sozialversicherungsanstalt der ge-
                         (2001/C 289/37)                            werblichen Wirtschaft.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice       (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-433/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione Tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): Panarotta 2002 Srl v Ufficio delle Imposte
Dirette di Trento.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-4/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/41)
                                                                    By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-434/99 (1)               the register of Case C-4/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v French Republic.
                         (2001/C 289/38)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
By order of 1 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-434/99: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di primo
grado di Trento): NTB SpA v Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
Trento.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-82/00 (1)
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/42)
                                                                    By order of 30 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-82/00: Commission of the European
       Removal from the register of Case C-501/99 (1)               Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2001/C 289/39)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
By order of 11 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-501/99: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-130/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/43)
                                                                    By order of 5 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
       Removal from the register of Case   C-511/99 (1)
                                                                    register of Case C-130/00: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                         (2001/C 289/40)
By order of 25 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-511/99: (reference for a preliminary


title: Case C-35/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that court of 23 June 2004 and 10 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2005, in the case of Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken Gmbh against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that court of 23 June 2004 and 10 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2005, in the case of Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken Gmbh against Ministero delle Finanze
   (Case C-35/05)
   (2005/C 93/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) by order of 23 June 2004 and 10 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken Gmbh against Ministero delle Finanze, on the following questions:

               1)

               Must Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC (1) of 6 December 1979, in so far as they make reimbursement to a non-resident recipient of goods or services conditional on use of the goods and services for the purposes of taxable transactions, be interpreted as meaning that even VAT that is not due, has been charged incorrectly as output tax and paid to the revenue authorities is refundable? If the answer is in the affirmative, is a national provision which precludes reimbursement to a non-resident recipient of goods or services on the ground that the tax charged and paid although not due is not deductible contrary to the abovementioned provisions?

               2)

               In general, is it possible to infer from the uniform Community rules that the recipient of goods or services is the person liable for payment of tax to the revenue authorities? Is it compatible with those rules and in particular with the principles of neutrality of VAT, effectiveness and non-discrimination, not to grant under domestic law to a recipient of goods or services who is subject to VAT and who is treated under national law as being subject to the obligations of invoicing and payment of the tax, a right against the revenue authorities to claim reimbursement in cases where tax that is not due is charged and paid? Are national rules – as interpreted by the national courts – under which a recipient of goods or services may bring an action only against the transferor or provider of the service and not against the revenue authorities, despite the existence of a case of substitution of that kind under domestic law in relation to direct taxes where both parties (the withholding agent and the taxpayer) are entitled to apply to the revenue authorities for reimbursement, contrary to the principles of effectiveness and non-discrimination in the matter of reimbursement of VAT collected in breach of Community law?

      (1)  OJ L 331 of 27 December 1979, p. 11.


title: Case C-484/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal)) — Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos v Companhia Europeia de Seguros SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 72/166/EEC — Article 3(1) — Directive 84/5/EEC — Article 2(1) — Directive 90/232/EEC — Article 1 — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Limitation criteria — Contribution to the damage — Lack of driver fault — Liability for risk)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal)) — Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos v Companhia Europeia de Seguros SA
   (Case C-484/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 72/166/EEC - Article 3(1) - Directive 84/5/EEC - Article 2(1) - Directive 90/232/EEC - Article 1 - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Limitation criteria - Contribution to the damage - Lack of driver fault - Liability for risk)
   2011/C 139/10
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos

      Defendant: Companhia Europeia de Seguros SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360), of Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) and of Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990, L 129, p. 33) — Determination of the type of civil liability applicable to road-traffic accidents — Conditions for limiting the right to compensation paid by compulsory motor vehicle insurance based on the contribution to the damage of one of the drivers responsible for the accident — Neither driver at fault — Liability for risk

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Article 2(1) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions which, in the case of a collision between two motor vehicles which has caused damage, where neither driver is at fault, apportions the liability for that damage in accordance with the extent of the contribution of each of those vehicles to the occurrence of the damage and, in the event of doubt in that regard, fixes the contributions at parity.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-78/16: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Sartour v Parliament (Public service contracts — Food concession in a building occupied by the Parliament — Rejection of the tender of a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Cancellation of the call for tenders — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/21

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2016 — Sartour v Parliament
   (Case T-78/16) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Food concession in a building occupied by the Parliament - Rejection of the tender of a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Cancellation of the call for tenders - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 410/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sartour (Beveren, Belgium) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: Z Nagy and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment, first, of the European Parliament’s decision of 18 December 2015, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant under tender procedure 06B40/2015/M073 for the Mediterranean food concession in the Altiero Spinelli Building occupied by the Parliament in Brussels, and, second, of the ‘decision’ whereby the Parliament awarded that concession to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Parliament shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-353/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid for Ixfin SpA — Aid which is illegal and incompatible with the internal market — Recovery — Non-performance)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/35

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-353/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for Ixfin SpA - Aid which is illegal and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Non-performance)
   2013/C 344/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and E. De Giovanni, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2009) 8123 of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA (OJ 2010 L 167, p. 39) — Obligation to recover immediately aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to inform the Commission thereof — Insolvent undertaking — Implementation not absolutely impossible

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover from Ixfin SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/359/EC of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA, and by not having submitted to the European Commission, within the period prescribed, the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-106/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission (EAGGF — Guidance Section — Reduction of financial aid — Community initiative programme Leader+ — Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 — Proportionality)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
   (Case T-106/10) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guidance Section - Reduction of financial aid - Community initiative programme Leader+ - Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 - Proportionality)
   2012/C 32/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10136 of 18 December 2009 final applying financial corrections to the support from the Guidance Section of the EAGGF allocated to the Community initiative CCI 2000 ES.060.0.PC.003 (Spain — Leader + Aragon).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-2/16: Action brought on 4 January 2016 — K&K Group v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/33

         Action brought on 4 January 2016 — K&K Group v OHIM — Pret a Manger (Europe) (Pret A Diner)
   (Case T-2/16)
   (2016/C 078/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: K&K Group AG (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pret a Manger (Europe) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Pret A Diner’ — International registration No 1 113 460

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings.

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2015 in Case R 2825/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 15(1), 42(2) and 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-198/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 . — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/100/EEC — Rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property — Public lending right — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006. — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-198/05) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/100/EEC - Rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property - Public lending right - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 326/22)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: M Braguglia, Agent, and M. Massella Ducci Teri, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61) — Derogation from the exclusive right in respect of public lending — Scope
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by exempting from the public lending right all categories of lending establishment accessible to the public within the meaning of Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.