title: Case T-457/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-9/12 CC v Parliament

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/42

         Appeal brought on 28 August 2013 by CC against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-9/12 CC v Parliament
   (Case T-457/13 P)
   2013/C 325/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CC (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Maximini, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 July 2013 in Case F-9/12 CC v European Parliament;

               —

               consequently, uphold the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage sustained on account of the conduct adversely affecting that party;

               —

               give judgment in accordance with the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on eight grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to order necessary measures of inquiry and therefore made a manifest error of assessment regarding the loss of opportunity for the appellant to be recruited to the Parliament as from June 2005.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment and, in the alternative, distortion of the facts when the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the Council had been informed of the existence of the list of suitable candidates on which the appellant’s name appeared.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts, a failure to state the reasons and a failure to respond to a plea, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to respond to the appellant’s pleas concerning (i) the Parliament’s obstruction of the appellant’s recruitment by the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) the absence of information concerning the existence of the list of suitable candidates and (iii) the fact that EPSO received permission to enter the appellant in its database and pass on that information.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and distortion of the facts, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal (i) erred in finding that the Parliament was not under a legal obligation to distribute the list of suitable candidates to all the institutions and bodies of the European Union, (ii) failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from the breach of the principle of equal treatment, sound administration and legal certainty and (iii) failed to examine documents.

               5.

               Fifth ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and a manifest error of assessment concerning the information on the extension of the list of suitable candidates, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the Council and the other institutions and bodies of the European Union were aware of the extension of the list of suitable candidates between June and August 2007.

               6.

               Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error in law, a manifest error of assessment, distortion of the facts and a failure to examine them, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal concluded that the duration of the validity of the list of suitable candidates extended in respect of the other successful candidates did not imply that the appellant had been treated unequally.

               7.

               Seventh ground of appeal, alleging an error in law and a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Civil Service Tribunal failed to draw the necessary conclusions as a result of the Parliament’s destruction of the documents concerning the appellant’s situation.

               8.

               Eighth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, a manifest error of assessment and, in the alternative, distortion of the facts, failure to adopt measures of inquiry and failure to state the reasons, inasmuch as, when analysing whether there was a loss of opportunity to be recruited and evaluating the damage sustained, the Civil Service Tribunal did not take into account the appellant’s actual situation and the wrongful conduct of the Parliament.


title: Case T-63/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Cementir Italia v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/40

         Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Cementir Italia v Commission
   (Case T-63/08)
   (2008/C 92/80)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Cementir Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: T. Salonico, G. Pellegrino, G. Pellegrino, G, Barone, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the contested decision is unlawful and annul that decision in its entirety inasmuch as it regards as State aid the contested measure, which in fact constitutes a lawful continuation of the measure by which the Italian State granted compensation to Terni SpA (and its assignees) for the expropriation of its electricity plants which occurred in 1962-63;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision insofar as it:

                           (a)

                           states that Italy unlawfully paid State aid to ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty;

                           (b)

                           states that there are amounts to be recovered from ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche; and consequently

                           (c)

                           orders Italy to recover those amounts plus interest without delay;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it orders Italy to recover the State aid plus interest without delay, since that recovery infringes the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-62/08 ThyssenKrupp v Commission.


title: Case C-488/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation (France), chambre commerciale, financière et économique – by judgment of that court of 16 November 2004 in the case of Galeries de Lisieux SA against Organic Recouvrement

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassation (France), chambre commerciale, financière et économique – by judgment of that court of 16 November 2004 in the case of Galeries de Lisieux SA against Organic Recouvrement
   (Case C-488/04)
   (2005/C 31/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation (France), chambre commerciale, financière et économique (the Court of Cassation (France), Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of 16 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Galeries de Lisieux SA against Organic Recouvrement on the following question:
   Is Community law to be interpreted as meaning that a tax, such as the tax to support the trade and craft sectors introduced by the Law of 13 July 1972, which is assessed on the basis of the sales area of retail stores in excess of 400 square metres and the proceeds of which are paid into special accounts of the old-age insurance funds of those in trade and crafts for the purpose of paying special compensation aid, which became cessation payments under Law No 81-1160 of 30 December 1981, must be classified as State aid, since it is borne only by establishments with a sales area exceeding 400 square metres or a turnover in excess of EUR 460 000, and it secures for the prospective recipient of the payment a reduction in charges as a result of the possibility of reducing any payments he might make to a supplementary retirement scheme?


title: Case C-294/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the Home Department (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — First indent of Article 6(1) — Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force — Leave to enter as a student or as an au pair — Effect on the right to remain)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-294/06) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - First indent of Article 6(1) - Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Leave to enter as a student or as an au pair - Effect on the right to remain)
   (2008/C 64/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Concept of a worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish national employed as an au pair after obtaining leave to remain for two years in order to pursue that activity — Turkish nationals holding leave to remain to follow a course of study and holding permission to work for a maximum of 20 hours per week during term time
   Operative part of the judgment
   The fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association. Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.


title: Case C-343/05: Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/11

         Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-343/05)
   (2005/C 281/20)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Pignataro Nolin and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that:
               by not ensuring that Ahvenanmaa (Åland) has transposed into its legislation Article 8a of Directive 89/622/EEC, which was added by Directive 92/41/EC and is contained in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC, (1) and
               by not enduring that the prohibition in the abovementioned Community provisions of marketing nuuska (oral tobacco) is complied with on vessels registered in Finland,
               the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Directive 2001/37/EC;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The list in Annex II to Directive 2001/37/EC mentions Directive 92/41/EEC and the time-limit for transposing its provisions into national legislation was 1 July 1992. In the case of Finland, the time-limit for transposing the provisions into national legislation based on Finland's accession was 1 January 1995, even though it must be stated that compliance with the directive was already mandatory for Finland from 1 January 1994 under the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

      (1)  Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, OJ L 194 of 18.7.2001, p. 26.


title: Case T-422/07: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2012 — Djebel — SGPS v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme designed to promote modern and competitive entrepreneurial strategies — Planned aid for a commercial company in the form of a soft loan in order to help finance an investment by that company in Brazil — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Impairment of competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Equal treatment)

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/7

         Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2012 — Djebel — SGPS v Commission
   (Case T-422/07) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme designed to promote modern and competitive entrepreneurial strategies - Planned aid for a commercial company in the form of a soft loan in order to help finance an investment by that company in Brazil - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market - Obligation to state reasons - Impairment of competition - Effect on trade between Member States - Equal treatment)
   2012/C 58/11
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Djebel — SGPS SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Andrade Neves and S. Castro Caldeira, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/582/EC of 10 May 2007 on State aid C 4/2006 (ex N 180/2005) — Portugal — Aid to Djebel (OJ 2007 L 219, p. 30).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Djebel — SGPS, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-569/12 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/53

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2012 by Emil Micsunescu against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2012 in Case T-314/12: Micsunescu v Commission
   (Case C-569/12 P)
   2013/C 225/97
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Emil Micsunescu (represented by: R. Neagu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 27 June 2013 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


C 79/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               from motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
                                                                          to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and            — Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
    mission Directive 98/90/EC of 30 November 1998 adapt-
    ing to technical progress Council Directive 70/387/EEC            Pleas in law and main arguments
    relating to the doors of motor vehicles and their trailers (1),
    the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under that directive;                                             Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) of
                                                                      the EC Treaty, according to which a directive is to be binding,
                                                                      as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      which it is addressed, Member States are required to observe
                                                                      the time-limits laid down in directives for their transposition.
                                                                      That time-limit expired on 31 December 1998 without the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                      provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                      the Commission’s application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) of
the EC Treaty, according to which a directive is to be binding,
as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to            (1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
which it is addressed, Member States are required to observe
the time-limits laid down in directives for their transposition.
That time-limit expired on 31 December 1998 without the
Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
the Commission’s application.
(1) OJ 1998 L 337, p. 29.                                                    Removal from the register of Case C-204/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/40)
                                                                      By order of 18 November 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-204/99: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                         (Case C-34/00)
                         (2000/C 79/39)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      Removal from the register of Case C-317/98 (1)
on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service,                                  (2000/C 79/41)
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                            By order of 25 November 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-317/98 (reference for a preliminary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           ruling from Pretore di Udine, sezione distaccata di Cividale del
                                                                      Friuli): Procuratore della Repubblica v Claudio Chiarotti and
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force              Antonino Chillemi.
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
    mission Directive 98/77/EC of 2 October 1998 adapting             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
    to technical progress Council Directive 70/220/EEC on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
    to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2004 in Case C-298/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Production aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables — Regulation (EEC) No 1558/91 — Article 1 — Peaches and pears — Decision 2002/524/EC)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 14 October 2004
   in Case C-298/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Production aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables - Regulation (EEC) No 1558/91 - Article 1 - Peaches and pears - Decision 2002/524/EC)
   (2004/C 300/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-298/02: Italian Republic (Agents: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and M. Moretto) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 21 August 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-278/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2015 by The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 26 March 2015 in Case T-581/13: Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/13

         Appeal brought on 4 June 2015 by The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 26 March 2015 in Case T-581/13: Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM
   (Case C-278/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (represented by: J. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   By order of 14 January 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-336/99: Action brought on 26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 63/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
Action brought on 26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA                       Action brought on 26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-336/99)                                                         (Case T-337/99)
                         (2000/C 63/55)                                                          (2000/C 63/56)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA, of Düsseldorf (Ger-                    26 November 1999 by Henkel KGaA, of Düsseldorf (Ger-
many), represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian             many), represented by Holger Friedrich Wissel and Christian
Osterrieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Pünder, Volhard, Weber             Osterrieth, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Pünder, Volhard, Weber
& Axter, Düsseldorf (Germany), with an address for service in           & Axter, Düsseldorf (Germany), with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the decision adopted on 21 September 1999 by the              (1) annul the decision adopted on 21 September 1999 by the
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
    the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings (R                        the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings (R
    71/1999-3) concerning Community trade mark regis-                       73/1999-3) concerning Community trade mark regis-
    tration application No 703 231;                                         tration application No 703 215;
(2) order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market           (2) order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
    to pay the costs.                                                       to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The trade mark con-           Three-dimensional mark using              The trade mark con-           Three-dimensional mark using
cerned:                       the colours white and green —             cerned:                       the colours white and red —
                              application No 703 231                                                  application No 703 215
Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-           Goods or service con-         Class 3, washing and dish-wash-
cerned:                       ing detergent in tablet form              cerned:                       ing detergent in tablet form
Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the            Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:                                                                 Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94                                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Misuse        of     discretionary                                    — Misuse        of    discretionary
                                  powers                                                                  powers
                              — Infringement of procedural                                            — Infringement of procedural
                                  law                                                                     law


title: Case T-304/06: Action brought on 10 November 2006 — Reber v OHIM (Mozart)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/61

         Action brought on 10 November 2006 — Reber v OHIM (Mozart)
   (Case T-304/06)
   (2006/C 326/131)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 September 2006 in appeal case R 97/2005-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Mozart’ for goods in Class 30 (Community trade mark No 21 071).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark concerned.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the duty under Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to state the reasons on which a decision is based, infringement by the Office of its duty under Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 to examine the facts of its own motion, infringement of the principle of good faith and infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.

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


title: Case T-120/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 October 2007 — MB Immobilien v Commission (Interim measures — State Aid to the new Länder — Obligation to recover aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/23

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 October 2007 — MB Immobilien v Commission
   (Case T-120/07 R)
   (Interim measures - State Aid to the new Länder - Obligation to recover aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   (2008/C 37/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MB Immobilien Verwaltungs GmbH (Neukirch, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2007/492/EC of 24 January 2007 on State Aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) implemented by Germany for the Biria-Gruppe (OJ 2007 L 183, p. 27)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-285/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by decision of that court of 10 May 2005 in Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries v Minister for Merchant Shipping and Minister for the Aegean

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by decision of that court of 10 May 2005 in Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries v Minister for Merchant Shipping and Minister for the Aegean
   (Case C-285/05)
   (2005/C 243/11)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, Greece) of 10 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Enosi Efopliston Aktoploias, ANEK, Minoikes Grammes, N.E. Lesvou and Blue Star Ferries and the Minister for Merchant Shipping and the Minister for the Aegean on the following questions:

               (a)

               In accordance with Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364), are individuals entitled to rely on that regulation to contest the validity of provisions adopted by the Greek legislature before 1 January 2004?

               (b)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do Articles 1, 2, and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 permit the adoption of national rules under which shipowners may provide maritime cabotage services only on specific operational routes determined each year by a national authority competent for that purpose and after first obtaining an administrative licence granted under an authorisation scheme having the following characteristics: (i) it relates to all operational routes, without exception, which serve islands, and (ii) the competent national authorities may approve an application submitted for the grant of a licence to operate a service by unilaterally amending, in the exercise of their discretion and without prior definition of the criteria applied, the elements of the application which relate to the frequency and the period of interruption of the service and to the fare tariff?

               (c)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is a restriction on the freedom to provide services that is impermissible for the purposes of Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community introduced by national legislation which provides that a shipowner to whom the administration has granted a licence to operate a ship on a specified route (either after his application in that regard has been approved as it stands, or after it has been approved with amendments to certain of its elements, which he accepts) is in principle obliged to work the particular operational route continuously for the entire duration of the annual operational period, and that to secure compliance with this obligation imposed on him he must deposit, before the operational service commences, a letter of guarantee all or part of whose amount will be forfeited if the obligation in question is not complied with or not complied with precisely?

               (d)

               Do Article 5(2) and Article 6(3)(a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144) in the version in force at the material time, before its amendment by Directive 2003/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003 (OJ 2003 L 123), permit a national rule which prohibits absolutely the operation on domestic voyages of ships which have reached a specified age?


15.6.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-233/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/50)
—     Incorrect legal basis and lack of competence of the
      Commission: The contested regulation has as its legal
      basis Article 45(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98
      for the conservation of fishery resources through techni-
                                                                        By order of 21 March 2002 the President of the Court of
      cal measures for the protection of juveniles of marine
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      organisms. That provision confers on the Commission
                                                                        from the register of Case C-233/99 (Reference for a preliminary
      limited legislative power which that institution may use
                                                                        ruling by Københavns Byret): Anklagemyndigheden (Public
      only in such cases and under such conditions as provided
                                                                        Prosecution Department) v Tonny Haugsted Hansen.
      in that provision, whilst general power to legislate in the
      matter of fisheries resides with the Council in accordance
      with the procedure laid down in Article 37 EC. In the
      present case, the Commission refers to a report of                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
      November 2000 by the International Council for the
      Exploration of the Sea and to Regulation No 1162/2001
      (which, in the Commission’s own words ‘cannot produce
      any effect whatsoever’ — see OJ L 47 of 19.2.2002,
      p. 21). No other data are produced to substantiate the
      statement made on 19 March that conservation of hake
      resources in the ICES areas affected required immediate
      action by the Commission.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-369/99 (1)
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:
                                                                                (2002/C 144/51)
—     Lack of a statement of reasons
                                                                        By order of 19 March 2002 the President of the Court of
The main arguments put forward in support of the last two
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
pleas are similar to those in Case C-304/01 (2).
                                                                        from the register of Case C-369/99: Kingdom of Spain v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ L 77, p. 8 of 20.3.2002.
(2) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001, p. 15.                                      (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-61/99 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-407/99 (1)
                          (2002/C 144/49)                                                        (2002/C 144/52)
By order of 8 February 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 11 December 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/99 (Referral for a preliminary           from the register of Case C-407/99 (Referral for a preliminary
ruling by the Landgericht Mainz): Deutsche Post AG v Landal             ruling by the Bundessozialgericht): Vetharanigam Pathminidevi
Green Parks GmbH.                                                       v Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank.
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                               (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-148/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova) Unicredito Italiano SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Genova 1 (State aid — Decision 2002/581/EC — Tax advantages granted to banks — Statement of reasons for a decision — Categorisation as State aid — Conditions — Compatibility with the common market — Conditions — Article 87(3)(b) and (c) EC — Important project of common European interest — Development of certain activities — Tax advantages granted previously — Recovery of the aid — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-148/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova) Unicredito Italiano SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Genova 1 (1)

   (State aid - Decision 2002/581/EC - Tax advantages granted to banks - Statement of reasons for a decision - Categorisation as State aid - Conditions - Compatibility with the common market - Conditions - Article 87(3)(b) and (c) EC - Important project of common European interest - Development of certain activities - Tax advantages granted previously - Recovery of the aid - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of proportionality)
   (2006/C 36/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-148/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy), made by decision of 11 February 2004, received at the Court on 23 March 2004, in the proceedings between Unicredito Italiano SpA and Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio Genova 1 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Examination of the questions referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy;

               2.

               Article 87 et seq. EC, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations cannot preclude a national measure ordering repayment of aid in compliance with a Commission decision which found that aid to be incompatible with the common market and examination of which in the light of those provisions and general principles has not disclosed any factor capable of affecting its validity.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 30.04.2004.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2002 in Case C-431/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Mons): Philippe Mertens v Belgian State (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of movement for persons — Tax legislation — Direct taxation — Deduction of personal losses)

text:
23.11.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/5
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                           of 11 July 2002                                                         of 12 September 2002
in Case C-464/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling                        in Case C-431/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes                           the Cour d’Appel, Mons): Philippe Mertens v Belgian
Oberösterreich): Primetzhofer Stahl -und Fahrzeugbau                                                        State (1)
     GmbH v Oberösterreichischer Landesregierung ( 1)
                                                                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of
(Preliminary ruling — Lack of relationship with the subject-                movement for persons — Tax legislation — Direct taxation
             matter of the dispute — Inadmissible)                                           — Deduction of personal losses)
                          (2002/C 289/08)                                                              (2002/C 289/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-431/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-464/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                  EC from the Cour d’Appel (Court of Appeal), Mons (Belgium),
EC from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes                        for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Oberösterreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the pro-               court between Philippe Mertens and État Belge — on the
ceedings pending before that court between Primetzhofer                     interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now,
Stahl -und Fahrzeugbau GmbH and Oberösterreichischer Lan-                   after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court
desregierung, intervener: Landes Oberösterreich — on the                    (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
interpretation of the third sentence of the second subparagraph             Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
of Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-                S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and                   order on 12 September 2002 in which it has ruled:
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works
contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council
                                                                            Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-                 precludes legislation by a Member State under which a natural person
nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts
                                                                            who resides in that Member State and pursues there a professional
(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
                                                                            activity as a self-employed person cannot deduct from the taxable
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,                       income in one year, as part of the system of taxes payable by natural
M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,
                                                                            persons, a loss suffered in the previous year unless it was impossible
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has             to set that loss against income received as an employee in another
made an order on 11 July 2002 , in which it has ruled:
                                                                            Member State during that same year inasmuch as a loss thus set
                                                                            against income cannot be deducted from taxable income in any of the
                                                                            Member States concerned, whereas it would be deductible if the
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Unabhängiger               abovementioned natural person had pursued his activities as a self
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of 15 December          employed person and as an employee exclusively within the Member
2000 is inadmissible.                                                       Sate in which he resides.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-257/07 R: Order of 28 September 2007 of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures — France v Commission (Application for interim measures — Health measures — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 — Application for suspension of operation — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of 28 September 2007 of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures — France v Commission
   (Case T-257/07 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Health measures - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 - Application for suspension of operation - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests)
   (2007/C 283/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, R. Loosli and A. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of point (3) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 of 26 June 2007 amending Annexes I, III, VII and X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2007 L 165, p. 8), in so far as it introduces, into Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of 22 May 2001 (OJ 2001 L 147, p. 1), point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application of point (3) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 727/2007 of 26 June 2007 amending Annexes I, III, VII and X to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies is suspended until judgment has been given in the main action, in so far as it introduces, in Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of 22 May 2001, point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-362/03: Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
1.11.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 264/21
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
                                                                             mission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                        (Case C-362/03)                                      visions necessary to transpose Directive 2000/30/EC of
                                                                             the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June
                        (2003/C 264/34)                                      2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the road-
                                                                             worthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the
                                                                             Community (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations under that directive;
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                             proceedings.
Communities, represented by Arnaud Bordes and Gerald
Braun, Members of the Legal Service of the European Com-
mission, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
      mission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
      visions necessary to transpose Council Directive 1999/           The period for transposition expired on 10 August 2002.
      74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards
      for the protection of laying hens (1), the Republic of
      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                       (1) OJ 2000 L 203, p. 1.
      directive;
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period for transposition expired on 1 January 2002.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.                                                                           Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-377/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/36)
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria
                        (Case C-363/03)                                An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
                        (2003/C 264/35)                                Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting
                                                                       as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                    the Court should:
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                             1.    Declare that,


title: Case T-357/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/56

      Action brought on 27 August 2010 — Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHIM — Compañía Nacional de Chocolates (CORONA)
      (Case T-357/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/104)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Péters and T. de Haan, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía Nacional de Chocolates SA (Medellín, Colombia)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 June 2010 in case R 696/2009-4; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CORONA’, for goods in class 30

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

         Mark or sign cited: Estonian trade mark registration No 20671 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Latvian trade mark registration No M36592 of the word mark ‘KARUNA’, for goods in class 30; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 28143 of the word mark ‘KARŪNA’, for goods in class 30

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the opposition division and rejected the opposition

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the marks are not similar or identical.


title: Case C-326/16 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2016 by LL against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15 LL v European Parliament

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/25

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2016 by LL against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15 LL v European Parliament
   (Case C-326/16 P)
   (2016/C 343/38)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Appellant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, advokatas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 April 2016 in Case T-615/15, by which the General Court dismissed the applicant’s action for annulment, first, of Decision D(2014) 15503 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 April 2014, by which repayment of the parliamentary assistance allowance wrongly paid to him was required, and secondly, of Debit Note No 2014-575 of 5 May 2014;

               —

               refer the case back for fresh examination.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on five pleas in support of his appeal.

               1.

               In making the order, the General Court of the European Union did not examine and assess thoroughly, correctly, comprehensively and objectively all the written evidence submitted together with the application that was of relevance in order to establish properly and correctly the time limit for instituting proceedings, and therefore conclusions contrary to the material in the file and to the legal provisions specified in the appeal were drawn in the order, inter alia that ‘[the] action was brought more than 17 months after that last date’, ‘… the applicant has not established or even referred to the existence of … circumstances which would allow a derogation from the time limit in question on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union …’ and ‘… the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time …’.

               2.

               In the order, the General Court did not apply Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union properly, and also infringed Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and assessed incorrectly the possibilities of applying Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union:

                           —

                           since the appellant, as a former Member of the European Parliament, did not agree with the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament (and the debit note adopted on its basis) and considered that it was unfounded, he exercised his right and fulfilled the requirements laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, submitting a complaint concerning the decision first to the Quaestors and then to the Bureau and the President of the European Parliament;

                           —

                           it was only subsequently, when on 10 September 2015 the appellant received an email from a representative of the European Parliament and with it, amongst other documents, final letter No 311354 of 26 June 2015 from the President of the European Parliament pursuant to Article 72(3) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, that the appellant’s right arose to bring an action before the General Court for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and of the debit note adopted on its basis;

                           —

                           it was specifically on the day on which final letter No 311354 of 26 June 2015 from the President of the European Parliament pursuant to Article 72(3) of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament was received, that is to say, on 10 September 2015, that, under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the two-month period began to run within which the appellant could institute proceedings before the General Court for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and of the debit note adopted on its basis;

                           —

                           in view of this and pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the period for instituting proceedings before the General Court came to an end on 10 December 2015. The application was received at the Registry of the General Court on 4 November 2015. This means that the two-month period for instituting proceedings, laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, was not breached and such an action was not lodged ‘out of time’;

                           —

                           in the order, the General Court did not assess at all the documents and circumstances referred to or the provisions of Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, provisions which the appellant observed and on the basis of which he lodged a complaint against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and the debit note under a pre-litigation procedure;

                           —

                           by the order, the General Court not only infringed the appellant’s rights and interests, but also applied Article 263 TFEU incorrectly, and in addition infringed Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament;

                           —

                           furthermore, in the order the General Court found incorrectly and without foundation that there was no possibility of applying Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The implementation of the procedure for pre-litigation examination of the dispute, the appellant’s active, careful, attentive and conscientious conduct, the time at which documents were received and other circumstances confirm that in the case under consideration, even if it were decided that the period for instituting proceedings was exceeded, the period would have to be renewed, as it was exceeded for important, objective and justifiable reasons, namely observance of the procedure laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (first paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice). The appellant could not know that observance of the compulsory procedure laid down in Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament may mean that he loses his right to institute proceedings before the General Court (second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice). It is to be noted that in the application the appellant also raised later the issue whether the decisions of the Quaestors and the Bureau of the European Parliament adopted pursuant to Article 72 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament were well founded and lawful.

               3.

               In the order, the General Court wrongly applied Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and on that basis decided by the order not to take further steps in the proceedings and to dismiss the action;

                           —

                           in the order, the General Court based the application of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure on the single circumstance and ground that proceedings were instituted out of time, that is to say, after the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU had expired;

                           —

                           it was demonstrated in the application that the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for instituting proceedings had not expired, and therefore by the order the General Court dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure wrongly and unlawfully;

                           —

                           in the case under consideration, the basis and the conditions for applying Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court are absent. The application was lodged before the period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU had expired and therefore it cannot be considered manifestly inadmissible. In the case under consideration, the General Court infringed Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure by applying it wrongly and unlawfully.

               4.

               The order of the General Court infringed the appellant’s right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, laid down in Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because by the order the General Court unlawfully and wrongly dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that it was allegedly out of time and did not examine the application, and the arguments and claims set out therein, as to the substance.

               5.

               By the order, the General Court wrongly decided that the appellant had to bear his own costs before the General Court (Article 133 and Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court):
               by the order, the General Court wrongly dismissed the action on the basis of Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, and therefore it also wrongly decided that the appellant had to bear his own costs before the General Court. After the order of the General Court has been set aside and the case has been referred back to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the question of the allocation of costs must be determined anew by the final decision of the General Court, and, if the action were upheld, the defendant, the European Parliament, would have to be ordered to pay the appellant all the costs incurred by him (Article 133 and Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court).


title: Case T-154/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  17 November 2005  — Biofarma v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word marks ARTEX — Application for Community word mark ALREX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2005 — Biofarma v OHIM
   (Case T-154/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word marks ARTEX - Application for Community word mark ALREX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 10/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Biofarma SA (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by V. Gil Vega, A. Ruiz López and D. Gonzalez Maroto, lawyers)

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

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tampa, Florida, United States) (represented by S. Klos, lawyer)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 February 2003 (Case R 370/2002 3), concerning opposition proceedings between Biofarma SA and Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 February 2003 (Case R 370/2002-3);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-378/11 P: Appeal brought on 21 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 April 2011 in Case T-95/11: Longevity Health Products v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/38

         Appeal brought on 21 June 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 April 2011 in Case T-95/11: Longevity Health Products v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-378/11 P)
   2011/C 269/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Admit the complaint filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.;

               —

               Annul the decision of the General Court of April 15, 2011, T-95/11;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits that the contested order should be annulled on the following grounds:

               —

               The reasoning of the General Court is defective;

               —

               The General Court did not consider the arguments advanced by the holder of the trade mark.


title: Case C-166/07: Action brought on 26 March 2007 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/8

         Action brought on 26 March 2007 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-166/07)
   (2007/C 155/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Klavina and L. Visaggio, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Moore, Agents)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 (1) of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010);

               —

               The Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Parliament relies on one plea in law in support of its action, alleging the incorrect choice of legal basis for the contested Regulation. Since the measures provided for by that regulation concern Community allocations in respect of economic and social cohesion, they should have been adopted on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 159 EC and not on that of Article 308 EC, which can be used only if no other provision of the Treaty confers on the Community institutions the necessary power to adopt the act in question.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 409, p. 86 and corrigendum — OJ 2007 L 36, p. 31.


title: Case F-65/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Serious illness — Objection of illegality concerning the criteria adopted by the medical council — Rejection of claims for reimbursement of medical expenses)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/60

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-65/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Serious illness - Objection of illegality concerning the criteria adopted by the medical council - Rejection of claims for reimbursement of medical expenses)
   2011/C 30/114
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing 100 % reimbursement of the applicant’s medical expenses.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr Marcuccio to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009, p. 43.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 November 1998 in the case of Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG and 2. Adidas Benelux BV (Case C-425/98)

text:
23.1.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/21
additional training required in order to obtain the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
corresponding title in the host Member State, Article 16               der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 November
provides that that State may require the migrant architect             1998 in the case of Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG
to use the title employed in his Member State of origin or                               and 2. Adidas Benelux BV
the Member State from which he comes in a suitable
form' to be specified by the host Member State. The                                           (Case C-425/98)
Directive does not authorise the host Member State to                                          (1999/C 20/35)
adopt other measures, such as the imposition of an
obligation requiring the architect in question to work in
collaboration with a professional person who is qualified
in the host Member State to pursue to the activities for
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
which the migrant architect has not received the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
prescribed training. Such measures constitute a
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
disproportionate restriction on the architect's freedom of
                                                                       6 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on
establishment and, a fortiori, on freedom to provide
                                                                       26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
services.
                                                                       Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG and 2. Adidas
                                                                       Benelux BV on the following question:
(1) Boletin Oficial del Estado No 214 of 7 September 1989.
(2) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.
                                                                       Where:
                                                                       (a) a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character,
                                                                            either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys
                                                                            with the public; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
PremieÁre Instance de Bruxelles (Sixth Chamber) by
judgment of that court of 10 November 1998 in the case
of Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweignieder-               (b) a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of
lassung München and 17 others against the Belgian State,                    the mark, uses, in the course of trade in goods or
  Minister of Finance, Customs and Excise Administration                    services which are identical with, or similar to, those
                                                                            for which the trade mark is registered, a sign which
                         (Case C-422/98)                                    so closely corresponds to the mark as to create a
                                                                            likelihood of its being associated with that mark,
                          (1999/C 20/34)
                                                                       must Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right enjoyed by
European Communities by judgment of the Sixth                          the proprietor entitles him to prevent the use of the sign
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                       by that third party if the distinctive character of the mark
Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) of                       is such that the possibility of such association giving rise
10 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                    to confusion cannot be ruled out?
26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweigniederlas-
sung München and 17 others v. Belgian State, Minister of               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
Finance, Customs and Excise Administration on the
following question:
Does not Paragraph 210 of the Ministerial Decree of
22 January 1948, by requiring an importer into Belgium
of manufactured tobacco products to which tax bands are                Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
affixed, where those products are not fit for consumption,             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
to destroy them in Belgium under the supervision of the                                            Republic
Belgian customs authorities and by not according
probative value to documents drawn up by the customs                                          (Case C-426/98)
authorities of another Member State as proof of such
                                                                                (1999/C 20/36)
destruction constitute a measure having effects equivalent
to a quantitative restriction?'
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities


title: Case T-754/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Refusal of registration — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission
   (Case T-754/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Refusal of registration - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 251/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany), Pedro De Birto E. Abreu Krupenski (Lisbon, Portugal), Susan Vance George (Paris, France), Otto Jaako Kronqvist (Helsinki, Finland), Blanche Léonie Denise Weber (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), John Jephson Hilary (London, United Kingdom), Ileana Lavinia Andrei (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: B. Kempen)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures relating to Commission Decision C (2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the citizens’ initiative ‘STOP TTIP’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-461/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection areas — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-461/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats))
   (2017/C 030/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, E. Sanfrutos Cano, D. Loma-Osorio Lerena and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special protection area ‘Campiñas de Sevilla’, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which that area was established, the Kingdom of Spain failed, in respect of the period before 29 July 2008, to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and, in respect of the period after that date, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case T-242/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/38

         Action brought on 29 April 2013 — Castell Macía v OHIM — PJ Hungary (PEPE CASTELL)
   (Case T-242/13)
   2013/C 207/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Castell Macía (Elche, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda, H. Mosback and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) (Budapest, Hungary)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 February 2013 in Case R 1401/2012-1 so as to dismiss the opposition filed and grant the Community trade mark application No 6 798 862‘PEPE CASTELL’, and order the opponent to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings;

               —

               order OHIM, as defendant, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the present action;

               —

               if necessary, order the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: José Castell Macía

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PEPE CASTELL’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 6 798 862

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word elements ‘Pepe Jeans FOOTWEAR’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-103/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Angel Angelidis v European Parliament (Appeal — Officials — Staff report — Single assessor — Conditions — Consultation of preceding immediate superior — Lack of change in post — Reasoning — Annulment — Damages)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Angel Angelidis v European Parliament
   (Case C-103/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Staff report - Single assessor - Conditions - Consultation of preceding immediate superior - Lack of change in post - Reasoning - Annulment - Damages)
   (2008/C 79/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Angel Angelidis (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha Pacha and A. Lukošiūte, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 in Case T-416/03 Angelidis v Parliament, in which the Court rejected the applicant's application, first, to annul his staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001 and, second, for compensation for the harm he suffered by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Angelidis to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.