title: Case T-477/13: Action brought on 4 September 2013 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/25

         Action brought on 4 September 2013 — Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank v Council
   (Case T-477/13)
   2013/C 336/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank S.A. L. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: P. Vanderveeren, L. Defalque and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               acknowledge the European Union’s non-contractual liability on account of the fact that the applicant was included and retained in Annex II to Council Regulation No 36/2012/EU;

               —

               as a result, order full and adequate compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful conduct of the European Union amounting to EUR 41 074 940, together with compensatory and default interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, and grant a provisional indemnity of EUR 1 million, to be adjusted according to the expenses and investment which the applicant must incur in order to re-establish its image and reputation;

               —

               in the alternative, if it is held that the amount of harm suffered must be recalculated, order an expert report in accordance with Article 65(d), Article 66(1) and Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, concerning the unlawful conduct alleged against the Council both in adopting the measures for the freezing of funds and in retaining them since January 2012, the applicant relies on four pleas in law alleging:

               —

               a manifest error of assessment as regards the implication of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime;

               —

               a lack of sufficient and precise reasons for the measures taken by the Council against the applicant;

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection and

               —

               defects in the examination carried out by the Council, tainting by illegality the restrictive measures applied by the Council.

         The applicant claims that the measures for the freezing of funds taken by the Council constitute the definite cause of both the material and non-material harm suffered by it.
   Concerning material harm, the applicant claims that it suffered significant operational and technological losses as a result, in particular, of the loss of business relations with several European and Arab banks, the radical reduction in its operating results and the loss of numerous banking assets since 2012. Furthermore, its previous supplier of banking software has terminated all relations with it.
   Concerning non-material harm, the applicant asks to be compensated for the damage resulting from the harm done to its image due to the unlawful measures for the freezing of funds adopted by the Council.


title: Case C-191/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 19 April 2010 — Rastelli Davide et C. v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for Médiasucre International

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/36

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 19 April 2010 — Rastelli Davide et C. v Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for Médiasucre International
      (Case C-191/10)
      (2010/C 161/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Cour de Cassation

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Rastelli Davide et C.

         Defendant: Jean-Charles Hidoux, in his capacity as liquidator appointed by the court for Médiasucre International

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Where a court in a Member State opens the main insolvency proceedings in respect of a debtor, on the view that the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated in the territory of that Member State, does Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) preclude the application, by that court, of a rule of national law conferring upon it jurisdiction to join to those proceedings a company whose seat is in another Member State solely on the basis of a finding that the property of the debtor and the property of that company have been intermixed?

                  2.

                  If the action for joinder falls to be categorised as the opening of new insolvency proceedings in respect of which the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State first seised is conditional on proof that the company to be joined has the centre of its main interests in that Member State, can such proof be inferred solely from the finding that the property of the two companies has been intermixed?

         (1)  OJ L 160, p. 1.


title: Case F-31/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days — Application received by post within the following ten days — Applications not the same — Action out of time)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-31/13)
   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings, extended on account of distance by a period of ten days - Application received by post within the following ten days - Applications not the same - Action out of time)
   2013/C 313/66
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Action to annul the dismissal of the applicant’s application requesting payment of compensation for the damage which he claims to have suffered following his reassignment from the Commission delegation in Luanda to the Commission headquarters in Brussels.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-24/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ section — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Aid for the production of olive oil)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 May 2012 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-24/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid for the production of olive oil)
   2012/C 174/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 November 2010 in Case T-113/08 Spain v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed its action seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12), inasmuch as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the olive oil and arable crop sectors.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 November 2010 in Case T-113/08 Spain v Commission in so far as, by holding that the Commission’s letter AGR 16844 of 11 July 2002 was a communication within the terms of Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/1999 of 22 October 1999, the General Court found that the date of notification of that letter was the reference point for the start of the 24-month period laid down in the fifth point of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995, and the fifth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, for the purposes of the financial correction applied in Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in the olive oil sector by reason of the fact that the proposals of the olive oil agency following the checks carried out at the mills had been inadequately monitored by the Spanish authorities;

               2.

               Annuls Decision 2008/68 in so far as it excludes from Community financing the expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the olive oil sector outside the 24-month period which preceded the date of notification of the Commission’s letter of 24 November 2004, arranging the bilateral meeting of 21 December 2004, inasmuch as that expenditure is affected by the correction applied by reason of the fact that the proposals of the olive oil agency following the checks carried out at the mills were inadequately monitored by the Spanish authorities;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission to bear their own respective costs incurred both at first instance and in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case T-56/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Commission v Economidis (Appeals — Staff cases — Officials — Annulment at first instance of the Commission's decision to appoint a head of unit — Rejection of the applicant's candidature — Appointment of another candidate — Determination of the level of the post to be filled in the vacancy notice — Principle of separation of the grade and the function — Appeal well-founded — Dispute capable of being decided — Dismissal of the action)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/49

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Commission v Economidis
   (Case T-56/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Officials - Annulment at first instance of the Commission's decision to appoint a head of unit - Rejection of the applicant's candidature - Appointment of another candidate - Determination of the level of the post to be filled in the vacancy notice - Principle of separation of the grade and the function - Appeal well-founded - Dispute capable of being decided - Dismissal of the action)
   (2008/C 209/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Ioannis Economidis (Woluwé-Saint-Etienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and A. Lukošiūtė, Agents); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and I. Sulce, Agents); and Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and B. Schäfer, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission, not yet published in the ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission, not yet published in the ECR-SC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr Ioannis Economidis before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-122/05;

               3.

               Orders Mr Economidis and the Commission to bear their own costs both in relation to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and before this Court;

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-219/12: Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/24

         Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission
   (Case T-219/12)
   2012/C 227/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul a call for tender published on 27 March 2012, concerning preparation of technical documentation for the rail modernization project ‘Doubling and upgrading of existing railway corridor Xb, section Novi Sad (excluding the junction)–Subotica–Hungarian border’ in accordance with EU interoperability standards, AGC, AGTC and the SEECP Agreement (OJ 2012/S 60-096517), excluding the applicant from participating in it;

               —

               Award damages for the alleged pecuniary loss;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that there was no legal ground for a priori exclusion of the applicant in participating in a call for tender in question since there was no conflict of interest;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the applicant’s exclusion from tender is contrary to IPA Regulation (1);

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the conditions for awarding the contract were unlawful.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17.7.2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, p. 82)


title: Case C-150/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/13

         Action brought on 28 March 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-150/11)
   2011/C 160/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by requiring, in addition to the production of a certificate of registration, the production of a certificate of conformity of a vehicle for the purpose of a roadworthiness test prior to the registration of a vehicle which was previously registered in another Member State, and by making vehicles which were previously registered in another Member State subject to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration without taking into account the results of the roadworthiness test carried out in another Member State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (1) and Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission puts forward two complaints in support of its action alleging that the national legislation which, first, requires the production of a certificate of conformity before the registration of a vehicle which was previously registered in another Member State and, secondly, refuses to take into account the results of the roadworthiness test carried out previously in that other State, fails to comply with Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and with Directive 1999/37/EC.
   By its first complaint the Commission alleges that the defendant imposed in a general and systematic way a roadworthiness test prior to the registration of second-hand vehicles which were previously registered in other Member States without taking into account possible tests already carried out in those States. Such a test is capable of dissuading some interested parties from importing second-hand vehicles which were previously registered in other Member States into Belgium and therefore constitutes a barrier to the free movement of goods, which is prohibited by Article 34 TFEU.
   By its second complaint the Commission submits that, according to the national legislation, an application for registration cannot be validated without a roadworthiness test certificate, which is issued by the Belgian authorities only on the condition that a certificate of conformity is produced, which has to be submitted in addition to the certificate of registration issued in another Member State. Such legislation is contrary to Article 4 of Directive 1999/37/EC and renders meaningless the principle of recognition of harmonised registration certificates issued by other Member States. Such a measure, although applicable equally to vehicles registered in Belgium or in another Member State, affects second-hand vehicles from another Member State more inasmuch as, in most of the Member States, the certificate of conformity does not come with the vehicle.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57.


title: Case F-129/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Dybman v EEAS (Civil Service — EEAS staff — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty — Criminal proceedings in progress at the time of the adoption of the disciplinary penalty — Identical facts submitted to the Appointing Authority and to the criminal court — Breach of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Dybman v EEAS
   (Case F-129/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EEAS staff - Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Criminal proceedings in progress at the time of the adoption of the disciplinary penalty - Identical facts submitted to the Appointing Authority and to the criminal court - Breach of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations))
   (2015/C 262/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Pierre Dybman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS to remove the applicant from his post without reducing his pension rights.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service to remove Mr Dybman from his post without reducing his pension rights;

               2.

               Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Dybman.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 61.


title: Case C-497/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy), lodged on 7 November 2012 — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy), lodged on 7 November 2012 — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania
   (Case C-497/12)
   2013/C 26/49
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and the preservation of competition under Article 49 et seq TFEU preclude national legislation which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and entered in the relevant professional register but does not own a pharmacy included on the ‘pianta organica’ [territorial grid], also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, pharmaceutical products which are subject to a prescription in the form of a ‘ricetta bianca’ — that is to say, pharmaceutical products the cost of which is borne, not by the Italian national health service, but wholly by the citizen — and which thereby also establishes in that sector a prohibition on the sale of certain categories of pharmaceutical products, as well as a quota in relation to the number of commercial outlets which may be established within the national territory?

               2.

               Must Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the principle therein established also applies, without restriction, to the profession of pharmacist, and that the public-interest aspect of that profession does not justify the application of different arrangements to the proprietors of pharmacies and to the proprietors of para-pharmacies as regards the sale of the medicinal products referred to in Question (1) above?

               3.

               Must Articles 102 [TFEU] and 106 [TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of the abuse of a dominant position must apply without restriction to the profession of pharmacist, inasmuch as a pharmacist who owns a traditional pharmacy, and sells medicinal products under a contractual arrangement with the Italian national health service, benefits from the ban on the sale of Class C medicinal products by proprietors of para-pharmacies, without this being properly justified on the basis of the undeniably special features of the profession of pharmacist arising from the public interest in safeguarding public health?


title: Case C-123/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt München (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Combined nomenclature classification of riding gloves — Heading 3926 — Heading 6116)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/13

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt München
      (Case C-123/09) (1)

      (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Combined nomenclature classification of riding gloves - Heading 3926 - Heading 6116)
      (2010/C 161/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht München

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Roeckl Sporthandschuhe GmbH & Co. KG

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) — Textile product roughened on one side for the sole purpose of strengthening adhesion of a layer of plastic material — Classification under subheading 3926 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that riding gloves, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, made up of fabric raised on one side and covered with a layer of plastic, where the support fabric is raised on one side and the raised side is then completely covered with a layer of polyurethane foam, which has an essential function in use of the gloves as riding gloves, must be classified under subheading 3926 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case T-431/05: Action brought on  5 December 2005  — Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/38

         Action brought on 5 December 2005 — Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB
   (Case T-431/05)
   (2006/C 48/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and Paolo Poloni (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the applicants' pay slips of February 2005 as replaced in May 2005 and the defendant's letter of 15 February 2005;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the applications for an administrative review (decisions of 17 May 2005) and grievances under the grievance procedure (decisions of 26 September 2005);

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants, consisting in the payment of EUR 5 000 to each applicant in respect of loss of purchasing power since 1 July 2001, arrears of remuneration corresponding to an increase in salary and all the applicants' associated rights of 0.3 % from 1 July 2001 and 0.6 % from 1 July 2003, and interest on the said arrears from the respective due dates until the date of payment. The interest rate must be the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In Case T-63/02, brought by the same applicants, staff of the European Central Bank (ECB), the Court of First Instance annulled the decisions contained in the salary statements sent on 13 July 2001 to the applicants, for July 2001, as the ECB did not consult the Staff Committee at the time of the adoption of the salary adjustment for 2001. In consequence of that judgment, the ECB consulted the Staff Committee concerning the salary adjustments for the period 2001-2003, and a salary increase for all staff from 1 July 2004. Moreover, it produced, in February 2005, new pay slips for the applicants replacing those of July 2001, which were annulled by the Court of First Instance.
   The applicants claim first of all that, by refusing to apply to them retrospectively from July 2001 the correction linked to the salary adjustment for 2001, the ECB infringed Article 233 EC, and the principle of res judicata with regard to the judgment given on 20 November 2003 in Case T-63/02.
   Moreover, they claim the infringement of Articles 45 and 46 of the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB, of the Memorandum of Understanding on relations between the ECB's managing bodies and the Staff Committee, of the principles of good administration and non-discrimination and of the obligation of good faith.
   Finally, the applicants claim compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the ECB's conduct.


title: Case C-24/08: Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/20

         Action brought on 22 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-24/08)
   (2008/C 79/34)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Afonso and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Portugal
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Republic of Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national law expired on 29 April 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.


title: Case T-479/08: Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — adidas v OHIM — Patrick Holding (Representation of a shoe with two stripes) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a shoe with two stripes on the side — Earlier national trade mark representing a shoe with three stripes on the side — Relative ground for refusal — Failure to substantiate the earlier right — Failure to translate elements essential to substantiating the registration of the earlier trade mark — Rule 16(3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 September 2011 — adidas v OHIM — Patrick Holding (Representation of a shoe with two stripes)
   (Case T-479/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a shoe with two stripes on the side - Earlier national trade mark representing a shoe with three stripes on the side - Relative ground for refusal - Failure to substantiate the earlier right - Failure to translate elements essential to substantiating the registration of the earlier trade mark - Rule 16(3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2011/C 331/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, and I. Fowler, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Løge and T. Meedom, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 August 2008 (Case R 849/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Patrick Holding ApS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders adidas AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 25 September 1997 in Case C-307/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Salvatore Baldone v. Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité (INAMI) (Article 95 (a) of Regulation (ECC) No 1408/71 - Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 - Transitional provisions - Recalculation of a benefit on the competent institution's own initiative - Rights of persons concerned)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 357/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                        (First Chamber)                               Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, as
                                                                      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of
                     of 25 September 1997                             30 April 1992, precludes the competent institution of a
in Case C-307/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Member State from applying on its own initiative the
the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels): Salvatore Baldone                 calculation rules contained in the amending Regulation to
v.    Institut  National      d'Assurance   Maladie-Invalidité        the detriment of the person concerned when the latter has,
                           (INAMI ) (»)                               before that Regulation entered into force on 1 June 1992,
                                                                      been awarded an invalidity pension in accordance with the
(Article 95 (a) of Regulation (ECC) No 1408/71 —                      provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 that were
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 — Transitional provisions                 applicable prior to that date and the decision concerning
— Recalculation of a benefit on the competent                         the pension was rectified after 31 May 1992 .
institution 's own initiative — Rights of persons concerned)
                         ( 97/C 357/01 )                              (>) OJ C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-307/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                    ( Sixth Chamber)
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail ( Labour
Court), Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the                                          of 30 September 1997
proceedings pending before that court between Salvatore               in Case C-36/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Baldone and Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invali             the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Faik Günaydin, Hatice
dité ( INAMI) — on the interpretation of Article 95 ( a ) of          Günaydin, Günes Günaydin, Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                                             Bayern ( l )
1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                     (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
                                                                      Council of Association — Freedom of movement for
members of their families moving within the Community
( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 ), as               workers — Meaning of 'duly registered as belonging to
amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )                     the labour force of a Member State' and 'legal
No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ),        employment' — Temporary and conditional work and
as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 of                residence permits — Application for extension of residence
30 April 1992 ( OJ L 136, 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7) — the Court                               permit — Abuse of rights)
( First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the                                        ( 97/C 357/02 )
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and P. Jann,
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                                     (Language of the case: German)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 September 1997, in
which it has ruled :
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Article 95 (a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                           published in the European Court Reports)
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                In Case C-36/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
persons and to members of their families moving within                of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht


C 146/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    21.6.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-192/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/60)                                                       (2003/C 146/63)
By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-192/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                            Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-149/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-343/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/61)                                                       (2003/C 146/64)
By order of 6 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-149/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-343/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.                             Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-155/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-363/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/62)                                                       (2003/C 146/65)
By order of 10 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 3 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-155/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-363/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                    Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case T-77/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/15

         Action brought on 19 February 2016 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
   (Case T-77/16)
   (2016/C 165/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, insofar as it affects the applicants, Articles 1(2), 3, 4 and 5 of the European Commission Decision of 1 October 2014 in State aid case SA.27339 finding that Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services had received unlawful State aid from Flugplatz GmbH Aeroville Zweibrücken (‘FGAZ’)/Flughafen Zweibrücken GmbH (‘FZG’) and the Land Rhineland-Palatine, incompatible with the internal market; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the principle of good administration, and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants access to the file of the investigation and put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU, in that the Commission misapplied the market economy operator (‘MEO’) test by carrying out a joint analysis of the airport services agreement with Ryanair and the marketing services agreement with AMS. Further, the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute an appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the Land’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, wrongly based its assessment on the agreed route only, and disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission failed to establish selectivity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and AMS was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of the airport instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and AMS. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, the Commission failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through the airport’s (supposedly) below-cost payment flows. Finally, the Commission failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the grant of the aid.


               17.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 40/15

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 3 May 2004 in the case of Reidar Rasmussen m.fl. v Total E&P Norge AS
   (Case E-2/04)
   (2005/C 40/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 3 May 2004 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Bergen, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Reidar Rasmussen m.fl. v Total E&P Norge AS, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 1 of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 applicable in a situation where part of an undertaking, provided that it is organised as an independent economic entity, is handed over from one company to another, and where the same or corresponding activities are carried out by the acquiring company and an affiliated company within the same group of companies? Does the fact that some working relationships are directly handed over from the transferor to the acquiring company and others to its affiliated company preclude application of the Directive?

               2.

               Is application of the Directive pursuant to Article 1 precluded in the event that the maintenance and support functions of the undertaking are handed over while the production function is not, and the employees of all these functions work as a team both before and after the transfer?

               3.

               Is the Directive applicable pursuant to Article 1 in the event of a handover of maintenance tasks on a fixed offshore installation for gas production where a considerable part, in terms of numbers and qualifications, of the workforce which performed this function with the transferor, is handed over to an acquirer that continues to carry out these maintenance tasks on the same installations under a service contract? Is application of the Directive precluded if the ownership of the tools and instruments which the maintenance staff used before the handover, and which they have continued to use after the handover, is not taken over by the acquirer?

               4.

               Does it follow from Article 3(1) of the Directive that employment relationships are transferred to the transferee simultaneously with and by virtue of the transfer of the undertaking for those employees who have not, prior to the time of transfer, declared that they do not wish to work for the transferee?


title: Case C-171/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of "firma Verbek-Voeten" and Productschap Vee en Vlees

text:
C 146/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  1.    a.    Is Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003                               No 1182/71 ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for                                period expressed in weeks such as that laid down by
                Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron                                     Article 50a of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) ends
                                                                                with the expiry of whichever day in the last week is
                          (Case C-170/03)                                            the same day of the week as the day following the
                                                                                day on which the slaughter took place?
                          (2003/C 146/52)
                                                                               b.    Is a Member State free, when applying Article 50a
                                                                                of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, to establish the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               time at which a premium application has been
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                                lodged pursuant to national rules of procedure
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 11 April 2003,                            which apply within the national legal system of that
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a                               Member State to comparable, national periods for
preliminary ruling in the appeal in cassation by the State                           making applications?
Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron on the following
questions:
                                                                               c.    If not, must Article 50a of Regulation (EEC)
1.    Must a car which is made available to a natural person by                      No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that a
      his employer and is used by him for both business and                          premium application has been ‘lodged’ in due time
      private purposes be regarded as personal property within                       if it can be shown to have been posted prior to the
      the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     expiry of the three-week period and to have been
      No 918/83 (1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community                          received by the competent authority at such a time
      system of reliefs from customs duty?                                           that it could have communicated the relevant data
                                                                                to the Commission on the same day as would have
2.    Must Article 3(a) of that regulation requiring property to                     been the case had the premium application been
      have been in the possession of the person concerned at                         received by the competent authority within that
      least six months before the date on which he gave up his                       period?
      normal place of residence in the country of origin be
      interpreted as meaning that the person concerned who               2.    Is Article 50a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 valid in
      has had property made available to him, albeit free of                   so far as it prevents applicants from receiving the full
      charge, in the context of his employment by the owner                    amount of the premium in respect of each occasion on
      of the property in question, is to be deemed to be in                    which the period for making applications is exceeded,
      possession of the property for the purposes of the                       irrespective of the way in which and extent to which this
      abovementioned provision?                                                is done?
3.    Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2 that
      during the whole period of six months the person
      concerned had the right to buy the car?                            (1 ) OJ L 124 of 8.6.1971, p. 1.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 20.
( 1) OJ L 105 [1983], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap                  Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French
Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of ‘firma               Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
       Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en Vlees                                                       ties
                          (Case C-171/03)
                                                                                (Case C-177/03)
                          (2003/C 146/53)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/54)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 2 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April
between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the name of ‘firma Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en                represented by Jürgen Grunwald and Bruno Stromsky, acting
Vlees on the following questions:                                        as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case F-147/06: Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Dragoman v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/48

         Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Dragoman v Commission
   (Case F-147/06)
   (2007/C 42/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Adriana Dragoman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Mihailescu, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/44/06-CJ for the constitution of a reserve for future recruitment of lawyer-linguists having Romanian as their principal language to award a mark of 18/40 for written test (b) to the applicant and not to admit her to the oral test of that competition;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant raises two pleas in law, the first of which is divided into two branches. The first refers to the infringement of the rules governing the work of the selection board, in that it assessed the tests by taking account rather of the comprehension of the source languages than of the precision of the translation into Romanian. The second refers to the infringement of the provisions of the competition notice relating to proper establishment and publication of the names of the members of the selection board. Such publication took place three days before the date of the tests, whereas the competition notice provided for a minimum of 15 days.
   In her second plea, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of the obligation to state reasons, insofar as the assessment carried out by the selection board gives no precise details regarding the parameters used in correction of the tests.


title: Case C-139/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Joan Cuadrench Moré v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Air transport — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Denied boarding and cancellation or long delays of flights — Period allowed for commencing proceedings)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Joan Cuadrench Moré v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
   (Case C-139/11) (1)

   (Air transport - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Denied boarding and cancellation or long delays of flights - Period allowed for commencing proceedings)
   2013/C 26/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Joan Cuadrench Moré

      Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Time-limits for bringing proceedings not laid down — Article 35 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), approved by Council Decision of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38) — Applicable law

      Operative part of the judgment

   Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits for bringing actions for compensation under Articles 5 and 7 of that regulation are determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case C-133/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2015 — H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others, other parties: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb) and Others

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2015 — H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others, other parties: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb) and Others
   (Case C-133/15)
   (2015/C 178/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: H.C. Chavez-Vilchez, P. Pinas, U. Nikolic, X.V. Garcia Perez, J. Uwituze, Y.R.L. Wip, I.O. Enowassam, A.E. Guerrero Chavez,

      Other parties: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb), College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Arnhem, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente’s-Gravenhage, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente’s-Hertogenbosch, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Amsterdam, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Rijswijk, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Rotterdam.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 20 of the TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State from depriving a third-country national who is responsible for the day to day and primary care of his/her minor child, who is a national of that Member State, of the right of residence in that Member State?

               2.

               In answering that question, is it relevant that the legal, financial and/or emotional burden does not rest entirely with that parent and, furthermore, that it cannot be excluded that the other parent, who is a national of the Member State, might in fact be able to care for the child? In that case, should the parent/third-country national have to make a plausible case that the other parent is not able to assume responsibility for the care of the child, so that the child would be obliged to leave the territory of the European Union if the parent/third-country national is denied a right of residence?


title: Case C-38/08 P: Order of the Court of 20 January 2009 — Jörn Sack v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Civil service — Remuneration — Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/21

         Order of the Court of 20 January 2009 — Jörn Sack v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-38/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Remuneration - Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 - Principle of equal treatment)
   2009/C 141/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Jörn Sack (represented by: D. Mahlo, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Wägenbaur and J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2007 in Case T-66/05 Sack v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for the annulment of the decisions relating to the setting of the applicant’s monthly salary for the period from May 2004 to February 2005, application for that salary to be recalculated and application for the annulment of the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint — Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 in the Commission’s legal service responsible for the coordination of a working group — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

      Operative part

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Sack shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-261/00: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Sacaim and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/23

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Sacaim and Others v Commission
   (Case T-261/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 38/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Sacaim SpA (Venice, Italy); Alfier Costruzioni Srl (Venice); Azin Asfalti Srl (Venice); Barbato Srl (Venice); Camata Costruzioni Sas (Venice); Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl (Venice); Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM) (Marghera, Italy); Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl (Marcon, Italy); Vettore Costruzioni Srl (Venice); ACEA — Associazione dei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia (Venice); and Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (Marghera) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola, A. Sodano and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic (represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               Sacaim SpA, Alfier Costruzioni Srl, Azin Asfalti Srl, Barbato Srl, Camata Costruzioni Sas, Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl, Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM), Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl, Vettore Costruzioni Srl, ACEA — Associazione dei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia and Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-459/09 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 — Dominio de la Vega, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ambrosio Velasco SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA — Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA — Existence of a likelihood of confusion in part of the territory of the European Union — Assessment of the similarity between the marks — Dominant element)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/7

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 — Dominio de la Vega, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ambrosio Velasco SA
   (Case C-459/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA - Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA - Existence of a likelihood of confusion in part of the territory of the European Union - Assessment of the similarity between the marks - Dominant element)
   2011/C 80/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Dominio de la Vega, SL (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Ambrosio Velasco SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-458/07 Dominio de la Vega v OHIM dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Dominio de la Vega SL shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-594/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/17

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-594/14)
   2014/C 361/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 5 00  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, order that an expert be appointed to establish the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2003 in Case C-82/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie): Agence Maritime Lalemant NV v Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteurop GIE, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and between Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture — Export refunds — Conditions for payment — Leaving the geographical territory of the Community — Definition)

text:
26.4.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 101/13
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 February 2003
                         of 12 February 2003
                                                                              in Case C-82/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Hof van Cassatie): Agence Maritime Lalemant NV v
in Case C-23/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteurop GIE, Belgisch Inter-
the Cour de cassation): Office national de l’emploi v                         ventie- en Restitutiebureau and between Malzfabrik Tivo-
                          Mohamed Alami ( 1)                                   li GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( 1)
                                                                              (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Agriculture —
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — EEC-Morocco                       Export refunds — Conditions for payment — Leaving the
Cooperation Agreement — Article 41 — Principle of non-                            geographical territory of the Community — Definition)
discrimination in the field of social security — Scope —
                        Unemployment benefit)                                                           (2003/C 101/23)
                            (2003/C 101/22)                                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      (Language of the case: French)                                             in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        In Case C-82/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                     in the European Court Reports)                           by the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the proceedings pending before that court between Agence
                                                                              Maritime Lalemant NV and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH, Malteur-
                                                                              op GIE, Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau and between
                                                                              Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitu-
In Case C-23/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              tiebureau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1) of Commission
by the Belgian Cour de cassation for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying
the proceedings pending before that court between Office
                                                                              down common detailed rules for the application of the system
national de l’emploi and Mohamed Alami, on the interpretation
                                                                              of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317,
of Article 41 of the Cooperation Agreement between the
                                                                              p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/
European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
                                                                              85 of 23 December 1985 (OJ 1985 L 371, p. 1), the Court
signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of
                                                                              (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
                                                                              Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), the Court (Second
                                                                              F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
                                                                              informing the referring court that the Court proposes to give
of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                   its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of
                                                                              the Rules of Procedure, after inviting the persons referred to in
12 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                              Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit
                                                                              any observations they might have in that regard, has made an
On its proper construction, Article 41(1) of the Cooperation                  order on 27 February 2003, the operative part of which is as
Agreement between the European Economic Community and the                     follows:
Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976 and
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC)               Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of
No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 precludes a host Member State                 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the
from refusing to grant a worker of Moroccan nationality resident in           application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products,
its territory the benefit of a seniority supplement increasing the basic      as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3826/85 of
amount of unemployment benefit on the sole ground that there is no            23 December 1985 must be interpreted as meaning that the
international agreement providing that account is to be taken of work         expression ‘geographical territory of the Community’ refers to a
carried out by that worker in another Member State, even though no            physical concept and that the requirement that the product in respect
such condition is imposed on workers who are nationals of that host           of which export refunds have been applied for must have left the
Member State.                                                                 geographical territory of the Community is not satisfied either by
                                                                              placing the product under customs control or by bringing it within
                                                                              the customs warehousing procedure.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case T-1/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014  — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Montres Tudor (GLAMOUR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GLAMOUR — Earlier international mark TUDOR GLAMOUR — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Montres Tudor (GLAMOUR)
   (Case T-1/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GLAMOUR - Earlier international mark TUDOR GLAMOUR - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 282/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: T. Raab, H. Lauf and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Montres Tudor SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: J.P. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda de Sousa and C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2012 (Case R 213/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Montres Tudor SA and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-485/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Articles 63 TFEU and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given — Exemption — Gifts and legacies — Difference in treatment — Bodies located in another Member State — Lack of a bilateral tax agreement)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/12

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-485/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Articles 63 TFEU and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given - Exemption - Gifts and legacies - Difference in treatment - Bodies located in another Member State - Lack of a bilateral tax agreement))
   (2015/C 311/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by exempting from droits de mutation à titre gratuit (duty payable on transfers for which no consideration is given) gifts and legacies to public bodies or to charitable bodies only where such bodies are established in France or in another Member State or in another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has concluded a bilateral agreement with it, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and

               2.

               orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-396/97)

text:
24.1.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 26/3
Is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of               the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of               The time-limit here passed on 31 December 1995 without
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments               the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                      necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
founded (1), which provides that notwithstanding the                forms of order sought by the Commission.
obligations under the treaties on which the European
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its           (1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 16.
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995), to be
interpreted as meaning that the transitional provisions
in Paragraph 40(2) and (5) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 (Landesgesetzblatt für Tirol
No 61/1996), which entered into force on 1 October
1996, fall within the definition of existing legislation, or        Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission
are those provisions to be regarded as new legislation               of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                                                 (Case C-397/97)
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tyrol
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the present                                    (98/C 26/06)
case?
                                                                    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
(1) OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 1.                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi
                                                                    and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                    Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission                Kirchberg.
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-396/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (98/C 26/05)
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                         regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                comply with Council Directive 93/120/EC of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      22 December 1993 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European                       on animal health conditions governing intra-
Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi                   Community trade in and imports from third countries
and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as                   of poultry and hatching eggs (1), or in any event by
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 failing to notify those provisions, the Italian Republic
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                        has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
Kirchberg.
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with Council Directive 93/121/EC of
                                                                         22 December 1993 amending Directive 91/494/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                 on animal health conditions governing intra-
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              Community trade in and imports from third countries
     comply with Directive 95/25/EC of 22 June 1995                      of fresh poultrymeat (2), or in any event by failing to
     amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems                    notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed
     affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals                   to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
     and swine (1), or in any event by failing to notify those
     provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that Directive,                              Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                         proceedings.
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is
                                                                    binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                    Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  The time-limit here passed on 1 January 1995 without the
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with              Italian Republic having adopted the provisions necessary


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1997 in Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of the European Communities (Modification of the olive oil regime - No transitional period - Action for damages)

text:
No C 252/30          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16 . 8 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                       of 10 July 1997
                                                                   (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
in Case T-81/96: Christos Apostolidis and Others v.
       Commission of the European Communities (')
(Officials — Remuneration — Weighting — Measures
taken to comply with a judgment ordering annulment —
Article 176 of the EC Treaty — Fair compensation —                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Article 44 (1) (c)
                 of the Rules of Procedure)                                                  of 11 July 1997
                                                                   in Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA v. Commission of
                        ( 97/C 252/65 )
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                                                                   (Modification of the olive oil regime — No transitional
                                                                                period — Action for damages)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/66 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-81 /96 : Christos Apostolidis, Philippe Arbore,
Patrick Barraux, Wilhelm Bartscher, Erhard Baumgärtner,
Ulrich Benedict, Rutger Beukers, Teresa Blanco Oria,               In Case T-267/94: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established in
Bruno Brandalise, Klaas Buijs, Franco Capone, Bernard              Ostuni ( Italy), represented by Piero A. M. Ferrari and
Chavane de Dalmassy, Jean-Claude Closset, Bert Cremer,             Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, and by Antonio
Manfred de Rossi, Geoffroy de Caritat, Peter Erndwein,             Tizzano, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in
Jean-Louis Finet, Serge Fourcaudot, Claude Fuchs, Bruno            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Giovannone, Karl-Heinz Gruhlke, Günther Guhl,                      Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Hermann Heidebleck, Wilhelm Heinz, Jean-Pol Hiernaut,              Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal
Tania Hiernaut, Erwin Hohnhäuser, Wolfgang Huber,                  Ferro ) — application for compensation for the loss
Klaus Kammerichs, Franz Kopp, Gerold Kramer, Patrick               allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the absence of
Lajarge, Ulrich Lang, Fabrice Lebrun, Sandra Lessmann,             any transitional measure in Commission Regulation ( EEC )
Achim Linder, Mauro Martellenghi, Margit Merten, Erich             No 1429/92 of 26 May 1992 amending Regulation ( EEC )
Mildenberger, Irmgard Neumann-Schölles, Adrian Nicholl,            No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive
Norbert Nolte, Giorgio Pagliosa, Dirk Pel, Jean-Claude             residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis ( OJ
Perrier, Gert Rasmussen, Cornelis Rijkeboer, Jürgen                No L 150, 2 . 6 . 1992 , p. 17 ) — the Court of First
Rodegher, Kuno Römer, Eva-Maria Schäfer, Walter                    Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García
Schmitt, Herbert Schneider, Hans Schneider, Raoul                  Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; A.
Selfslag, Joseph Somers, Vittorino Tebaldi, Hartmut                Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Thiele, Hans van de Vegt, Jacques van de Laar, Günther             judgment on 11 July 1997, in which it:
Waigel, Clive Walker, Ludwig Westenfelder, Hans
Winkelmann and Walter Ziehl, officials and temporary               1 . dismisses the application;
agents of the Commission of the European Communities,
employed in the European Institute for Transuranic                 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Elements, Karlsruhe ( Germany), represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange,
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ), supported by
Council of the European Union (Agent: Diego Canga
Fano ) — application, first, for annulment of the decision
taken against them by the Commission, rejecting the                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
applicants ' request for the drawing-up of their pay slips                                   (Fifth Chamber)
for January 1992 in compliance with the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of 27 October 1994 in Case T-64/                                     of 11 July 1997
92 Chavanne de Dalmassy and Others v. Commission                   in Case T-29/96: Bernd Schoch v. European Parliament ( ] )
[ 1994] ECR-SC 11-723 and, second, for compensation for
the non-material damage suffered — the Court of First              (Officials — Compensation for leave not taken — Sick
Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                       leave — Notice)
President, C. P. Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; A. Mair,                                       ( 97/C 252/67 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 July 1997, in which it:                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-29/96 : Bend Schoch, a former member of the
1 . dismisses the application;                                     temporary staff of the Liberal Democratic and Reformist


title: Case T-243/10: Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Rungis Express/HABM — Žito (MARESTO)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/40

         Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Rungis Express/HABM — Žito (MARESTO)
   (Case T-243/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/73
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: RUNGIS Express AG (Meckenheim, Germany) (represented by: U. Feldmann, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ŽITO prehrambena industrija, d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2010 in Case R 691/2009-1;

               —

               Dismiss the Defendant's opposition.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark MARESTO for goods in Class 29.

      Proprietor of the marks cited in opposition: ŽITO prehrambena industrija, d.d.

      Marks cited in opposition: National pictorial mark depicting a cook and including the word element M·A·E·S·T·R·O for goods in Classes 29 and 30, a national pictorial mark including the word element M•A•E•S•T•R•O for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 43, and the national word mark ‘BRAVO MAESTRO!’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 43.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) (b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) on the ground that the marks cited in opposition lacked distinctive character and/or were purely descriptive.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)