title: Case T-80/07: Action brought on 15 March 2007 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/55

         Action brought on 15 March 2007 — JanSport Apparel v OHIM (BUILT TO RESIST)
   (Case T-80/07)
   (2007/C 95/111)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: JanSport Apparel Corp. (Wilmington, USA) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, C. Casalonga, K. Dimidjian-Lecompte, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the contested decision R 1090/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal, dated 12 January 2007, partially refusing the registration of CTM Application No 2937522 BUILT TO RESIST for the following goods:

                           —

                              paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; advertisement boards of paper or cardboard, albums, announcement cards, bags of paper or plastic, for packaging, bags of conical paper, bibs of paper, books, calendars, cardboard labels, catalogues, charts, embroidery designs (patterns), engravings, envelopes, folders, forms, greeting cards, books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, newsletters and other printed publications, photographs, pictures, portraits, postcards, stationery, address plates, address stamps, adhesive tapes for stationery or household purposes, announcement cards book markers, writing pads, plastic film for wrapping, paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists' materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers' type; printing blocks pencil cases, pens, writing paper, envelopes, posters, paper banners, personal organizers, notebooks and paper binders; mouse pads in class 16;

                           —

                              leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; all purpose bags and sporting bags, softluggage, luggage cases, backpacks, day packs, fanny packs, frame packs, knapsacks, ski packs, book bags, tote bags, duffle bags, bicycle bags, handbags, garment bags, clothing bags, suitcases, pullman cases, briefcases, wallets, umbrellas and parasols, business card cases and holders, billfolds and money clips, straps, pads and belts and all related goods to the before mentioned as far as included in class 18; and

                           —

                              clothing, headgear and footwear in class 25; and

               —

               order that the Office pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The national word mark 'BUILT TO RESIST' for goods and services in classes 16, 18 and 25 — application No 293 7522

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94.
   First, with regards to the descriptiveness of the word mark claimed, the applicant submits that the latter enables the relevant public to discern immediately and without further reflection any of the characteristics of the goods offered. The simple fact that the word mark at stake is evocative of the goods claimed is not sufficient, according to the applicant, to be refused registration and thus, the afforded protection on the basis of Article 7(1)(c). Moreover, the applicant contends that pursuant to established case-law, even if a slogan may also serve marketing or advertising purposes, in addition to its principal function as a trade mark, it should not be refused registration. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the fact that the word mark was registered at a national level, in the United States, for the same products, proves that it is capable of being perceived by the public and in fact for English speaking consumers, as an indication of commercial origin.
   Second, with regards to its inherent distinctiveness, the applicant claims that the word mark provides at least a minimum degree of distinctiveness which should allow the registration to proceed.


title: Case T-205/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend against a blue background) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE american blend — Earlier Community figurative mark La LIBERTAD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend against a blue background)
   (Case T-205/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark LIBERTE american blend - Earlier Community figurative mark La LIBERTAD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 233/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany) (represented by: B. Pikolin and H. McKenzie, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 387/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Villiger Söhne GmbH and GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-322/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Complaint by a competitor — Admissibility — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 4, 10, 13 and 20 — Commission decision not to examine the complaint further — Classification by the Commission of measures as partially not constituting State aid and partially as existing aid compatible with the common market — Article 230 EC — Concept of an act open to challenge )

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB v European Commission
   (Case C-322/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Complaint by a competitor - Admissibility - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 10, 13 and 20 - Commission decision not to examine the complaint further - Classification by the Commission of measures as partially not constituting State aid and partially as existing aid compatible with the common market - Article 230 EC - Concept of ‘an act open to challenge’)
   2011/C 13/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 June 2009 in Case T-152/06 NDSHT v Commission by which the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible the action seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision, included in letters of 24 March and 28 April 2006, not to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, in consequence of the applicant’s complaint concerning aid allegedly granted to Stockholm Visitors Board AB by the Swedish authorities, in the form of various types of subsidy granted by the City of Stockholm — Acts which may be challenged

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 9 June 2009 in Case T-152/06 NDSHT v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission of the European Communities before the General Court;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the claim of NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB for annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, contained in its letters of 24 March and 28 April 2006, not to continue its examination of the complaint that that company had lodged concerning allegedly unlawful State aid granted by the City of Stockholm to Stockholm Visitors Board AB;

               4.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.6.2009, p. 12.


title: Case T-501/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Bodegas Franco-Españolas S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM))

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/27

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Bodegas Franco-Españolas S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM))
   (Case T-501/04)
   (2005/C 45/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Bodegas Franco-Españolas S.A., of Logrono (Spain), represented by María Emilia López Camba, of the Madrid Bar,
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2004, in Case R 513/2002-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for the Community mark:

               The applicant

               Community mark applied for:

               Word mark Royal, for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers).

               Holder of the mark or sign relied on in the opposition proceedings:

               Compañía General da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro S.A.

               Opposing mark or sign:

               Portuguese figurative mark ROYAL BRANDE, No 122 170, Community word mark ROYAL FEITORIA, No 418.301 and international word mark ROYAL OPORTO WINE COMPANY (PORTUGAL), No 174 788, for goods in Class 33.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld on the basis of Community mark No 418 301 and application for registration dismissed.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Grounds:

               Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-419/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Okalux v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH) (Community trade mark — Forfeiture proceedings — Community word mark OKATECH — Partial revocation — Period allowed for appeal — Articles 57 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 58 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Right to a hearing)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Okalux v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH)
   (Case T-419/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Forfeiture proceedings - Community word mark OKATECH - Partial revocation - Period allowed for appeal - Articles 57 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 58 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty - Right to a hearing)
   2009/C 193/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Okalux GmbH (Marktheidenfeld, Germany) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: I Friedhoff, and subsequently by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Case R 766/2007-2) concerning forfeiture proceedings between Messe Düsseldorf GmbH and Okalux GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Okalux GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-215/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/10

         Action brought on 22 May 2012 — MPM-Quality and Eutech v OHIM — Elton hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
   (Case T-215/12)
   2012/C 273/18
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicants: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) and Eutech akciová společnost (Šternberk, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elton hodinářská, a.s.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2012 in Case R 826/2010-4,

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Composite trade mark ‘MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949’ no 3531662 for goods and services in classes 9, 14 and 35

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Elton hodinářská, a.s.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicants

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Application on the basis of Article 51(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(a) and (b) and Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and on the basis of Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: The applicants submit that the Board of Appeal infringed Articles 8(1)(a) and (b), 8(5) and 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (‘the Regulation’) in that it:

               —

               proceeded from an incorrect interpretation of the burden of argument and proof under Articles 54 and 165(4) of the Regulation;

               —

               incorrectly applied the case-law of the Court of Justice;

               —

               did not take account of the substantial exploitation, well-known character and use of the international trade mark, which are important for the perception of the sign PRIM by the relevant consumers;

               —

               incorrectly applied Article 55 in relation to Article 41 of the Regulation by asserting that the earlier rights to the sign must belong to the same owner;

               —

               did not express a view on the facts put forward by the applicants and the evidence submitted by them, did not accord that evidence its significance, and did not deal at all with some of it (e.g. the licence agreements);

               —

               did not take account of the fact that similar marks containing the word ‘PRIM’ are already registered in the European Union.


title: Case F-111/15: Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/55

         Action brought on 31 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-111/15)
   (2015/C 354/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant and his spouse reimbursement of the costs concerning three invoices for medical treatment and treatment relating to the cancer from which she is suffering.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision refusing reimbursement of itemised accounts 67, 68 and 72 concerning the healthcare expenses incurred by the applicant’s spouse;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Appeal brought on 14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV against the judgment delivered on 12 January 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-102/92 between VIHO Europe BV and Commission of the European Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd (Case C-73/95 P)

text:
No C 137/ 10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
first compromise on Italy's request for a quota increase, it               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
was decided to finance a programme of abandoning
production to allow Italy to reduce its national production.               The appellant claims that substantive law was infringed
It appears strange, and symptomatic of a manifest misuse of                when Article 85 was applied ( maintenance and partitioning
powers, that the Commission should now censure Italy for                   of the various national markets by Parker Pen Ltd's policy of
not reallocating the quotas purchased for the purposes of                  referring enquiries to local subsidiaries; unequal treatment
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 , while at the same time the                  of VIHO with regard to prices and conditions of sale ).
Council decided upon Community financing to reduce
Italian production. In the circumstances, the reallocation of
the 164 100 tonnes repurchased for the purposes of                         (») OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 15 .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 would clearly have led to a
worsening of the situation . Italy therefore preferred to
suspend the reallocation, which was in contradiction with
actual Community requirements .
(')  OJ No L  94 , 28 . 4 . 1970 , p. 13 .
(2 ) OJ No L  186 , 16 . 8 . 1972 , p. 1 .                                 Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of
(;)  OJ No L  90 , 1 . 4 . 1984 , p. 13 .                                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(4 ) OJ No L  139 , 4 . 6 . 1988 , p. 12 .
                                                                                ( Case C-82/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/19 )
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                           Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Appeal brought on 14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV                          Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
against the judgment delivered on 12 January 1995 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-102/92 between VIHO Europe BV                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
and Commission of the European Communities, supported
                          by Parker Pen Ltd                                1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                           ( Case C-73/95 P)                                    obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to
                              ( 95 /C 137/ 18 )                                 bring into force and to communicate to the Commission
                                                                               within the requisite time limit the laws , regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 91 /308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January                         prevention of the use of the financial system for the
1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     purpose of money laundering ( ! );
the European Communities in Case T-102/92 between
VIHO Europe BV and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd , was brought                     2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV, Maastricht                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Netherlands ), represented by Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch und
Partner, Rechtsanwalte, Stuttgart, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1                  Article 16 of Directive 91 /308/EEC provides that the
rue Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.                                             Member States are to bring into force the laws , regulations
                                                                           and administrative decisions necessary to comply with the
                                                                           Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith
                                                                           to notify the Commission thereof.
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           Having received no communication from the Greek
1 . annul the Commission decision of 30 September 1992                     Government concerning measures adopted in order to
     and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance             incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek
     of 12 January 1995 (T-102/92 ) f 1 );                                 legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                           to the Government in question a formal letter before action.
                                                                           Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
2.   order the Commission to bear the costs of the                         Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
     proceedings , including those incurred by the intervenor,             giving the Greek Government a period of two months
     Parker Pen Ltd .                                                      within which to comply with the Directive .


title: Case T-202/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM ( 555 )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/36

         Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (‘555’)
   (Case T-202/07)
   (2007/C 183/70)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza ‘Technopol’ Sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

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

               —

               set aside in its entirety decision no R 1278/2006-4 delivered on 22 March 2007 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘555’ for goods in Class 16

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: misapplication of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designation ‘555’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

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


title: Case T-357/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 April 2015 in Case F-72/14, Garcia Minguez v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/49

         Appeal brought on 7 July 2015 by Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 April 2015 in Case F-72/14, Garcia Minguez v Commission
   (Case T-357/15 P)
   (2015/C 279/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Ortiz Blanco and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant requests the General Court:

               —

               to set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 28 April 2015 in case F-72/14;

               —

               to rule on the proceedings in F-72/14 and to annul the decision of the Commission not to admit the appellant to the internal competition COM/3/AD 9/13; and

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the terms ‘Commission’ and ‘institution’ appearing in the competition notice and Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant contends that the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) must be considered part of the Commission for the purpose of determining those eligible for an internal competition.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations. The appellant contends that it is unlawful to admit staff working directly for an institution to an internal competition, including those who are seconded to an executive agency, and at the same time to exclude the other staff working for the same agency.

               3.

               Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to reply to a plea put forward in the application, failure to give reasons and an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the statutes of the institutions. The appellant contends that her particular situation — she performed, with the agreement of the Commission, the duties of head of unit for two units shown on the Commission organisation chart — justifies her being admitted to the internal competition in question.


title: Case T-214/11: Action brought on 11 April 2011 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/18

         Action brought on 11 April 2011 — ClientEarth and PAN Europe v EFSA
   (Case T-214/11)
   2011/C 179/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) and Pesticides Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kirch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the defendant in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters;

               —

               declare the defendant in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1);

               —

               declare the defendant in violation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2);

               —

               Annul the negative reply by which the defendant withheld the requested documents; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the negative reply of European Food Safety Authority to their request for access to document, thereby withholding intermediate drafts and the scientific advice from EFSA's Pesticides Steering Committee (PSC) and Plant protection products and their residues (PPR) Panel relating to the Guidance on the submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (3).
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Articles 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for not replying within the prescribed time limits to the applicants' confirmatory application and not providing detailed reasons for doing so.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(1)(2)(3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters for failure to provide the applicants access to the requested drafts and the scientific advice on EFSA's Guidance. The contested decision also violates Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for failure to interpret the exceptions provided under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a restrictive way.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(3) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to demonstrate that the disclosure of the requested documents would seriously undermine EFSA's internal decision-making, particularly after the decision has been taken.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 4(3) second subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for failure to assess whether there is an overriding public interest in disclosure and to provide a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)

      (2)  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)

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)


title: Case C-228/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd
   (Case C-228/11)
   2011/C 211/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Melzer

      Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd

      Question referred

   In the context of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where there is cross-border participation of several people in a tort or delict, is reciprocal attribution of the place where the event occurred admissible for determining the place where the harmful event occurred?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-364/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/44/EC — Article 6(2)(c) — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Parthenogenetic activation of oocytes — Production of human embryonic stem cells — Patentability — Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’  — Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘organism capable of commencing the process of development of a human being’ )

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-364/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/44/EC - Article 6(2)(c) - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Parthenogenetic activation of oocytes - Production of human embryonic stem cells - Patentability - Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ - Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘organism capable of commencing the process of development of a human being’))
   (2015/C 065/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: International Stem Cell Corporation

      Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis does not constitute a ‘human embryo’, within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, it does not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/38

         Removal from the Register of Case T-69/02 (1)

   (2004/C 217/69)

      (Language of the case: Spanish)

   By order of 7 June 2004 the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-69/02, Organización de Productores de Tunidos Congelados (OPTUC) v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-448/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals — Failure to implement within the required time-limit)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-448/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals - Failure to implement within the required time-limit)
   (2005/C 271/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-448/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchard-Joët) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 27 October 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, with the exception of Article 7 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004


title: Case T-286/15: Action brought on 28 May 2015 — KF/SATCEN

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/57

         Action brought on 28 May 2015 — KF/SATCEN
   (Case T-286/15)
   (2015/C 302/73)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: KF (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Satellite Centre (SATCEN)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul/set aside the Appeals Board’s decision of 26 January 2015 notified to the applicant on 23 March 2015 rejecting two appeals of the applicant. The applicant invokes the inapplicability of Article 28.6. of the SATCEN Staff Regulations (1) pursuant to Article 277 TFEU;

               —

               annul the SATCEN implied decision of 5 July 2013 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance;

               —

               annul the SATCEN decision of 5 July 2013 to suspend the applicant from duty and initiate disciplinary proceedings, alternatively review the decisions’ legality incidentally in the action against the removal decision;

               —

               annul the SATCEN removal decision of 28 February 2014;

               —

               order the SATCEN to pay the applicant compensation for the material damage suffered in the form of salaries, emoluments and entitlements until the end of the applicant’s contract and compensate the applicant for the non-material damage suffered, assessed provisionally on an ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 00  000;

               —

               order the SATCEN to pay the costs, together with interest of 8 %.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In support of the action for annulment of the decision of the SATCEN Appeals Board’s decision of 26 January 2015, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy and to fair proceedings.

                           —

                           The Appeals Board ignored the majority of the applicant’s factual and legal pleas, and it hardly considered/reviewed any of the multiple breaches of the applicant’s fundamental rights.

               2.

               In support of the action for annulment of the SATCEN implied refusal of 5 July 2013 to render assistance pursuant to Article 2.6 of the SATCEN Staff Regulations, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

                           —

                           First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance pursuant to Article 2.6 of the SATCEN Staff Regulations and the applicant’s right under Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘EU Charter’).

                           —

                           Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the applicant’s right under Article 31 of the EU Charter.

               3.

               In support of the action for annulment of the suspension decision taken by SATCEN and its decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

                           —

                           First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality, infringement of the applicant’s right to sound administration, and misuse of powers.

                           —

                           Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, infringement of Articles 1.1 and 2 of Annex IX of SATCEN Staff Regulations, and misuse of powers.

                           —

                           Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of presumption of innocence.

               4.

               In support of the action for annulment of removal decision of SATCEN taken on 28 February 2014, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

                           —

                           First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence, of Article 10.1 of Annex IX of the SATCEN Staff Regulations, and of the applicant’s right to sound administration.

                           —

                           Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of impartiality.

                           —

                           Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to establish the substantive truth of the facts relied on by the Appointing Authority, the applicant’s right of disclosure to establish her innocence and the principle of the presumption of innocence.

                           —

                           Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. The Director’s Report does not state the facts complained of. The Chairperson, Disciplinary Board improperly refused to request the Director to determine the specific acts the applicant is accused of.

      (1)  Council Decision 2009/747/CFSP of 14 September 2009 concerning the Staff Regulations of the European Union Satellite Centre (OJ 2009 L 276, p. 1).


title: Case T-286/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/38

         Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-286/17)
   (2017/C 231/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Donetsk, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant(s)/appellant(s) claims/claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 34) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017, L 58, p. 1) insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council lacked a proper legal basis for the contested acts.

                           —

                           The conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the contested decision.

                           —

                           The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU.

                           —

                           There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers.

                           —

                           The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the contested acts was essentially to try to curry favour with the current regime in Ukraine (so that Ukraine proceeds with closer ties with the EU), and not the purposes/rationales stated on the face of the contested acts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons.

                           —

                           The ‘statement of reasons’ adopted in the contested acts for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and inadequately particularised.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant does not fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. In re-designating the applicant, notwithstanding the clear disconnect between the ‘statement of reasons’ and the relevant designation criteria, the Council has made a manifest error.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the applicant prior to the re-designation, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.


title: Case F-4/07: Action brought on 19 January 2007 — Skoulidi v Commission

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/44

         Action brought on 19 January 2007 — Skoulidi v Commission
   (Case F-4/07)
   (2007/C 56/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eleni-Eleftheria Skoulidi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Award the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 March 2006 refusing to allow her to benefit under the exchange agreement concluded between the Commission and the Greek Government;

               —

               Assess that damage on equitable principles at EUR 200 000;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, after having been made available to the Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs for eight months, applied to be able to benefit under the Scheme of Exchanges of officials between the Commission and the Member States in order to complete the tasks she had performed during that period. After having obtained the agreement of a number of Commission departments and the Greek Government, the applicant received a negative decision from her institution, on the grounds that the exchange was contrary to the applicable provisions governing the making available of officials.
   In her action, the applicant considers that the Commission is guilty of misconduct on a number of points, namely:

               —

               failure to demonstrate the diligence required of every administration;

               —

               failure to comply with the commitments resulting from the exchange agreement which it itself concluded with the Greek Government, thereby infringing the applicant's legitimate expectations and the general Community interest;

               —

               inappropriate remarks about the applicant;

               —

               discrimination against the applicant in relation to other officials who were made available to certain national administrations for a longer period.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 12 March 2004 in Case C-54/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Austroplant-Arzneimittel GmbH v Republik Österreich (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure — Request for the national court to provide clarification — Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/29

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 March 2004
   in Case C-54/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Austroplant-Arzneimittel GmbH v Republik Österreich (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure - Request for the national court to provide clarification - Inadmissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)
   (2004/C 118/52)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-54/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria), seeking to obtain, in the proceedings pending before that court between Austroplant-Arzneimittel GmbH and Republik Österreich, a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinaI products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) – the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges, made an order on 12 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The request for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by order of 29 January 2003, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10. 5. 2003.


title: Case C-199/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 204/32                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        17.7.1999
4. Do the principle of legal certainty and the rules on                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sedgefield
     inward processing relief arrangements allow the competent           Magistrates’ Court , by order of that Court of 21 May
     customs authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield           1999, in the case of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme
     fixed in the processing authorisation if it is proved that                                     Edgar Hume
     the said customs authority has been monitoring and
     supervising the operation of the undertaking in question                                     (Case C-193/99)
     since the inception of the arrangements in Portugal (in
     1986)?                                                                                (1999/C 204/64)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of 16 July 1985 on inward        European Communities by an order of the Sedgefield Magis-
    processing relief arrangements (OJ L 188 of 20.7.1985, p. 1).        trates’ Court, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Vehicle Inspectorate against Graeme Edgar Hume, on the
                                                                         following questions:
                                                                         1. Where, pursuant to Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
                                                                              3820/85/EEC (1) a driver who is entitled to do so elects to
                                                                              postpone his weekly rest period until the week following
                                                                              that in which it is due, must the driver take two weekly
                                                                              rest periods, consecutively and without break between
                                                                              them, in that following week?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  2. If the answer to question (1) is in the negative, must such
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 19 May 1999                          a driver nevertheless take two weekly rest periods in the
in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly Trafalgar House                         following week, or is he permitted to postpone, in turn,
         PLC) against Staatssecretaris van Financiën                          the weekly rest period for that second week to the next
                                                                              following week?
                           (Case C-191/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
                                                                             the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
                          (1999/C 204/63)                                    transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 19 May 1999,
received at the Court Registry on 25 May 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kvaerner PLC (formerly                 Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc
Trafalgar House PLC) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the             against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
following questions:                                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case
                                                                         T-151/94 between British Steel plc and the Commission
1. Is it permissible under Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of Second                          of the European Communities
     Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 for a
     Member State to charge a legal person established in                                        (Case C-199/99 P)
     another Member State to insurance tax in respect of
     premiums paid to an insurer also established in another                                      (1999/C 204/65)
     Member State for the professional indemnity insurance of
     the minor subsidiary established in the Member State                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999
     making the levy?                                                    by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in case T-151/94
2. Does it make any difference to the reply to Question 1 if             between British Steel plc and the Commission of the European
     the policy-holder is not the overall parent company but             Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     some other company in the group (for example a captive              European Communities on 25 May 1999 by British Steel plc,
     insurance company)?                                                 a company governed by the laws of England and Wales and
                                                                         whose registered office is at 15 Marylebone Road, London
                                                                         NW1 5JD, represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew
3. Does it make any difference to the replies to Questions 1             Levitt, Solicitors of Lovell White Durrant, with an address for
     and 2 or to the interpretation of the terms ‘policy-holder’         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter,
     or ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ if the insurance       11 rue Goethe. B.P. 1107.
     premium relating to the insured risk is not (wholly or in
     part) invoiced to the minor subsidiary?                             The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (a) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case
                                                                              T-151/94. British Steel plc v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, of 11 March 1999;
 ---pagebreak--- 17.7.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 204/33
(b) the state of the case so permitting, annul Commission                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     Decision 94/215/ECSC (1) of 16 February 1994 relating to            Düsseldorf by order of that court of 12 May 1999 in
     a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty              the case of Deutsche Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt
     concerning agreements and concerted practices (allegedly)                                      Düsseldorf
     engaged in by European producers of beams;
                                                                                (Case C-201/99)
(c) alternatively, reduce or cancel the fine set by the Court of
     First Instance imposed on British Steel by Article 4 of                                     (1999/C 204/66)
     Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC;
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(d) order interest to be paid by the Commission on the fine or           European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of
     such part of it as is repaid under (b) or (c) above, in respect     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of
     of the period since payment of the fine by British Steel on         12 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
     2 June 1994 until repayment by the Commission and at                26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutsche
     such rate as is considered by the Court to be fair and just;        Nichimen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf on the following
                                                                         questions:
(e) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         1. Is the definition of television receivers in heading No 8528
                                                                             of the Combined Nomenclature in the version in force
                                                                             from 1990 to 1992 to be interpreted as including devices
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              such as the satellite receivers more precisely described in
                                                                             the grounds of this order, even though with those devices
                                                                             television programmes can be made visible and audible
It is submitted, in summary, that the Court of First Instance                only with television receivers of domestic type?
erred in law in the following respects:
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the definition
                                                                             of parts in heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomen-
(a) in denying British Steel a fair trial within a reasonable                clature or in Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined
     period, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention                Nomenclature in the version in force from 1990 to 1992
     for the Protection of Human Rights;                                     to be interpreted as including devices such as the satellite
                                                                             receivers more precisely described in the grounds of this
(b) in finding that the Decision had been adopted and                        order, and are those devices then to be classified under
     authenticated in conformity with the requisite rules and                heading No 8529 of the Combined Nomenclature despite
     procedures,                                                             Note 2(b) to Section XVI of the Combined Nomenclature?
(c) in characterising the facts as agreements or concerted
     practices prohibited by Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty,
     in disregard of its own findings as to the nature and
     purpose of the contacts taking place between the undertak-
     ings within the framework of the Commission’s monitor-
     ing system and contrary to the meaning of Article 65(1);
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
                                                                         mo (Supreme Court) Sala de lo Contencioso-
(d) in finding, contrary to the rights of defence, that, during the      administrativo (Division for Contentious Administrative
     administrative procedure, the Commission had provided               Proceedings) Sección Tercera (Third Chamber) by order
     British Steel with sufficient information concerning its            of that court of 12 May 1999 in the case of Asociación
     own role and had carried out an adequate investigation              Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares
     into its own role;                                                  (ANALIR), Isleña de Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamen-
                                                                         tos de Baleares S.A. and Unión Sindical Obrera (USO)
                                                                                against Administración del Estado
(e) in finding that the Decision contained an adequate state-
     ment of reasons for the fine imposed on British Steel;
                                                                                (Case C-205/99)
(f) in failing, contrary to Article 33 of the Treaty, to annul the
     Decision to the extent that it had found that British Steel                                 (1999/C 204/67)
     had committed infringements of Article 65(1) prior to
     1 July 1988.                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                         Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección Tercera of
                                                                         12 May 1999, received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999,
(1) OJ L 116, 06.05.1994, p. 1.                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of Asociación Profesional
                                                                         de Empresas Navieras de Lı́neas Regulares (ANALIR), Isleña de
                                                                         Navegación S.A. (ISNASA), Fletamentos de Baleares S.A. and
                                                                         Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) against Administración del
                                                                         Estado on the following questions:


title: Case T-662/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark M — Earlier Community word mark dm — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Diseños Mireia (M)
   (Case T-662/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark M - Earlier Community word mark dm - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky and C. Mellein, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diseños Mireia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 911/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Diseños Mireia, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-264/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Freedom to provide services — Agency of delegated project contracting — Persons to whom the task of delegated project contracting may be entrusted — Exhaustive list of legal persons created under French law)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-264/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public contracts - Directive 92/50/EEC - Procedures for the award of public service contracts - Freedom to provide services - Agency of delegated project contracting - Persons to whom the task of delegated project contracting may be entrusted - Exhaustive list of legal persons created under French law)
   (2005/C 315/04)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-264/03: ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 June 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. Stromsky, K. Wiedner and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Petrausch — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, A. Borg Barthet and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: K. Sztranc, Administrator, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:
   Declares that, by reserving, in Article 4 of Law No 85-704 of 12 July 1985 on public project contracting and its relationship to private project management, as amended by Law No 96-987 of 14 November 1996 on the implementation of the urban revival pact, the task of delegated project contracting to an exhaustive list of legal persons created under French law, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and under Article 49 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/2

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Grand Chamber and the Second, Third, Sixth and Seventh Chambers
   (2007/C 69/04)
   At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the list, referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber, as follows:

               Mr Schintgen

               Ms Toader

               Mr Tizzano

               Mr Arabadjiev

               Mr Cunha Rodrigues

               Mr von Danwitz

               Ms Silva de Lapuerta

               Mr Bonichot

               Sir Konrad Schiemann

               Ms Lindh

               Mr Makarczyk

               Mr Bay Larsen

               Mr Kūris

               Mr Ó Caoimh

               Mr Juhász

               Mr Levits

               Mr Arestis

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr Borg Barthet

               Mr Klučka

               Mr Ilešič

               Mr Malenovský

         At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Second and Third Chambers, as follows:
   Second Chamber

               Sir Konrad Schiemann

               Ms Toader

               Mr Makarczyk

               Mr Bonichot

               Mr Kūris

               Mr Bay Larsen

         Third Chamber

               Mr Cunha Rodrigues

               Mr Arabadjiev

               Mr Klučka

               Ms Lindh

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr O'Caoimh

         At its meeting on 16 January 2007, the Court drew up the lists, referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of determining the composition of the Sixth and Seventh Chambers, as follows:
   Sixth Chamber

               Sir Konrad Schiemann

               Mr Makarczyk

               Mr Bay Larsen

               Mr Bonichot

               Ms Toader

         Seventh Chamber

               Mr Cunha Rodrigues

               Mr Lõhmus

               Mr O'Caoimh

               Ms Lindh

               Mr Arabadjiev


title: Appeal brought on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-174/98 P)

text:
15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/17
The prohibition of cargo-sharing arrangements in any              The appellant claims that the Court should:
future agreements' (Article 5 of the Regulation) is
designed to obviate the significant legal effects of such
arrangements, which undermine the principle of freedom             (1) set aside the contested judgment (1);
to provide services to maritime transport applied by
Regulation No 4055/86. In order to guarantee the
effectiveness of the prohibition, the Member States are            (2) annul the contested decision, alternatively, refer the
obliged to refrain from including cargo-sharing                        case back to the Court of First Instance for further
arrangements in any new agreements negotiated with third               adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court
countries.                                                             of Justice;
The agreement in question thus contains cargo-sharing              (3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
arrangements which, in the case of future agreements, may
be authorised only in those exceptional circumstances,
provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
86, where Community liner shipping companies would
not otherwise have an effective opportunity to ply for
trade to and from the country concerned, and which may             Ð Infringement of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC,
be permitted in accordance with Article 6 of the                       EC, Euratom on public access to Commission
Regulation, which provides for a proposal to be submitted              documents (2): the Court of First Instance wrongly held
by the Commission to the Council. Those criteria and                   that the public interest exception in Decision 94/90
procedures are not satisfied in the present case.                      may be invoked to protect the procedural autonomy of
                                                                       national courts. The decision of the Commission on
                                                                       which the Court of First Instance ruled in its contested
The agreement in question reserves carriage between the                judgment did not concern the question whether or not
parties thereto for vessels which fly the flag of either of            a national court is obliged to grant access to
those parties or which are operated by national shipping              documents contained in its (national) case-file or Ð
companies'. It follows that vessels operated by nationals              more specifically Ð the extent to which the national
of other Member States are excluded from the trade. The                court should grant access to a letter sent to it by the
agreement has therefore been contrary to the regulation                Commission.
since it entered into force. Consequently, the regulation
has been infringed, albeit that Belgium purports to wish to
terminate the agreement as regards the future. In any                  The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to examine
event, no adjustment has been carried out to date.                     whether, in relation to each document access to which
                                                                       is sought, such access should, having regard to its
                                                                       content, be refused in the public interest. If the Court
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.                                      of First Instance makes access to documents
                                                                       conditional solely on the status of the addresse in the
                                                                       present case, a national court, it will be applying a
                                                                       criterion for which no support is to be found in
                                                                       Decision 94/90.
Appeal brought on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the                    The right to access to documents held by the
Netherlands against the judgment delivered on 19 March                 Commission constitutes a general principle of Decision
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                    94/90. The exceptions to that principle must be
Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,                    narrowly interpreted and strictly applied. The
supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the                   contested judgment is contrary to that interpretation,
         Commission of the European Communities                        which has previously been accepted by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance (3), since all documents drawn up by the
                      (Case C-174/98 P)                                Commission for the purposes of particular proceedings
                        (98/C 258/29)                                  are excluded from the scope of the principle,
                                                                       irrespective of the contents of those documents. The
                                                                       contested judgment thus applies a broad interpretation
                                                                       to the exception, in a manner which is incompatible
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March                   with Decision 94/90. That broad interpretation is also
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                    contrary to the objective of Decision 94/90, since it
Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,                    precludes attainment of the objective of transparency
supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the                   in the relationship between the Commission and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                     national courts.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
represented by Marc Fierstra and Corinna Wissels, of the               The interpretation applied in the contested judgment is
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agents.              in breach of the uniform application of Community
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.8.98
     law and, in particular, of Decision 94/90. According to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Court of First Instance, it is for the national court
     Ð at least for as long as the proceedings remain
     pending before that national court Ð to determine, on           The award of the above allowances to women subject to
     the basis of its procedural rules, whether access to            conditions which are not laid down for men employees is
     specified documents should be granted. This means               contrary to the requirements of Article 119 of the EC
     that access to Commission documents will vary                   Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC.
     according to the legal system applied.
                                                                     Removal of that discrimination should have taken place
Ð Infringement of Article 33 in conjunction with
                                                                     on 1 January 1981, the date of entry into force in Greece
     Article 44 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice:
                                                                     of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117/
     the Court of First Instance failed to state adequate
                                                                     EEC. The Hellenic Republic harmonised its legislation
     reasons for the contested judgment, in that it omitted
                                                                     with the above provisions, but did not give it retroactive
     to indicate the manner in which Article 6 of the
                                                                     force. The failure to award the above allowances to
     European Convention of Human Rights, on which the
                                                                     married women employees retrospectively from 1 January
     Court of First Instance bases the principle of the
                                                                     1981 not only deprived them of part of their pay in the
     procedural autonomy of national courts, is infringed
                                                                     period from that date until the Greek legislation was
     in the event that it is the Commission which decides
                                                                     harmonised, but continues to produce unlawful effects to
     whether access is to be granted to documents drawn
                                                                     the extent to which those allowances are taken into
     up by that institution for the purposes of particular
                                                                     account for pension calculation purposes. Consequently it
     court proceedings.
                                                                     is contrary also to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC,
                                                                     which prohibits any discrimination in matters of social
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.                                     security on ground of sex, in particular as concerns the
(2) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.                                     calculation of benefits.
(3) Judgment of 5 March 1997 in Case T-105/95 WWF UK v
    Commission.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975, p. 19.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-187/98)                              An appeal brought on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the
                         (98/C 258/30)                               Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                     Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the
                                                                     Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                                      European Communities
before the Court of Justice on 18 May 1998 by the                                          (Case C-189/98 P)
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Dimitrios Gouloussis, of its Legal Service, with an                                        (98/C 258/31)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March
                                                                     1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
                                                                     supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Ð the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal, represented by
     under Community law, in particular under Article 119
                                                                     L. Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in
     of the EC Treaty, Article 3 of Directive 75/117/EEC (1)
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
     and the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), in so far as it has not repealed, with
     retroactive effect from the date of the entry into force
     of the above Community provisions in Greece, rules              The appellant claims that the Court should:
     which, in respect of the award to employees of a
     family allowance or marriage allowance, which are
     taken into account in the determination of the level of         (1) declare the present appeal against the judgment
     pensionable salary, laid down special substantive                   delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First
     conditions for married women employees which were                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/
     not laid down for married men employees.                            96 (1) admissible;