title: Case C-230/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 25 June 2009 — Hauptzollamt Koblenz v Kurt Etling und Thomas Etling, a civil law partnership; intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 25 June 2009 — Hauptzollamt Koblenz v Kurt Etling und Thomas Etling, a civil law partnership; intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen
   (Case C-230/09)
   2009/C 220/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hauptzollamt Koblenz

      Respondents: Kurt Etling und Thomas Etling, a civil law partnership

      Intervener: Bundesministerium der Finanzen

      Question referred

   Must Community law, in particular Article 5(k) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector, (1) be interpreted to mean that the reference quantity of a producer, in the twelve-month period in which a reference quantity was transferred to that producer from another producer, does not include the quantity in respect of which, during the twelve-month period in question, milk was already delivered by that other producer?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 270, p. 123.


title: Case C-377/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj — Romania) — Adrian Băilă v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Craiova, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of relationship with the reality or the subject-matter of the case in the main proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/17

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj — Romania) — Adrian Băilă v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Craiova, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
   (Case C-377/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lack of relationship with the reality or the subject-matter of the case in the main proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 63/31
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Dolj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adrian Băilă

      Defendant: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Craiova, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Dolj — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State — Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a given Member State — Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU — Temporary exemption for vehicles with certain characteristics

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunalul Dolj by decision of 9 June 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-141/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2009/147/EC — Conservation of wild birds — Kaliakra and Belite Skali special protection areas — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and wild species — Kompleks Kaliakra site of Community importance — Directive 2011/92/EU — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Temporal applicability of the system of protection — Deterioration of natural habitats of species and disturbance of species — Wind power — Tourism)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-141/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2009/147/EC - Conservation of wild birds - Kaliakra and Belite Skali special protection areas - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and wild species - Kompleks Kaliakra site of Community importance - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Temporal applicability of the system of protection - Deterioration of natural habitats of species and disturbance of species - Wind power - Tourism))
   (2016/C 098/04)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and P. Mihaylova, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and D. Drambozova, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by failing to include all the territories of the important bird areas in the special protection area covering the Kaliakra region, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to classify as special protection areas the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation, first, of the biological species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and, secondly, of the migratory species not listed in that annex but regularly occurring in the geographical sea and land area where that directive applies, with the result that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive;

                           —

                           by approving the implementation of the projects ‘AES Geo Energy’, ‘Disib’ and ‘Longman Investment’ in the territory of the important bird area covering the Kaliakra region which was not classified as a special protection area, although it should have been, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147;

                           —

                           by approving the implementation of the projects ‘Kaliakra Wind Power’, ‘EVN Enertrag Kavarna’ and ‘Vertikal — Petkov & Cie’, and of the ‘Thracian Cliffs Golf & Spa Resort’, in the territory of the special protection areas covering the regions of Kaliakra and Belite Skali respectively, the Republic of Bulgaria 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;

                           —

                           by failing, first, to assess properly the cumulative effect of the projects ‘Windtech’, ‘Brestiom’, ‘Eco Energy’ and ‘Longman Investment’ in the territory of the important bird area covering the Kaliakra region which was not classified as a special protection area, although it should have been, and, secondly, by none the less authorising the implementation of the ‘Longman Investment’ project, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) and (3) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and point 1(b) of Annex III to that directive, and under Article 2(1) of that directive, respectively;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-378/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — First, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a — National legislation restricting the right of action against decisions in the environmental field — Failure to transpose within the time-limit prescribed)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 June 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-378/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - First, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a - National legislation restricting the right of action against decisions in the environmental field - Failure to transpose within the time-limit prescribed)
   2010/C 209/14
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and J.-B, Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Jirkalová)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — National legislation restricting public participation in decision making procedure in the environmental field.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-58/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/13

         Action brought on 1 February 2016 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-58/16)
   (2016/C 118/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure that, for all ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen, the boundaries of each port are defined, that port security assessments and port security plans are established and that port security officers are approved, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, 7 and 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 2005/65/EC, Member States are required to ensure that a port security assessment is carried out for each of the ports covered by that directive and that it is approved by the Member State concerned. Pursuant to Annex I to that directive, such port security assessments must include all areas that are relevant to port security, including the port boundaries.
   Pursuant to Article 2(3), Member States are required to define the boundaries for each port, taking into account, as appropriate, information resulting from the port security assessment. Article 2(4) deal with the case in which the boundaries of a port facility within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 (2) effectively cover the port.
   The inspection carried out in 2013 revealed that, for at least eleven of the ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by Directive 2005/65/EC, no security assessment had been carried out. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.
   At least as far as those ports are concerned, the boundaries of the port facilities have also not been defined, since the definition of those boundaries is in turn based on the security assessments, as mentioned above.
   It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Articles 2(3) and 6 of Directive 2005/65/EC.
   Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2005/65/EC, Member States are required to ensure that a port security plan is established for each port covered by the directive and that it is approved by the Member State concerned.
   In their letter of 21 August 2013, the German authorities acknowledged that, with regard to eleven of the ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by the directive, port security plans were lacking. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.
   It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Article 7 of Directive 2005/65/EC.
   Pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC, a port security officer must be approved for each port covered by that directive.
   In their letter of 21 August 2013, the German authorities acknowledged that, with regard to several ports in Nordrhein-Westfalen covered by the directive, no port security officers had been approved. It is evident from subsequent correspondence that that situation has not to date been remedied.
   It is therefore clear that Germany has failed properly to implement Article 9 of Directive 2005/65/EC.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 310, p. 28.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 129, p. 6.


title: Case C-363/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2013 — Leonardo Zappalà v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 June 2013 — Leonardo Zappalà v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
   (Case C-363/13)
   2013/C 260/53
   Language of the case: Italy

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Leonardo Zappalà

      Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the clauses of the framework agreement on fixed-term work implemented by Directive 1999/70 (1) applicable to maritime labour and, in particular, does clause 2(1) thereof also cover workers engaged for a fixed term on ferries making daily crossings?

               2.

               Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Article 332 of the Navigation Code) that provides that the ‘duration’ of the contract, rather than its ‘term’, is to be indicated, and is it compatible with that directive to provide for the duration of the contract by indicating a terminating point that is definite as regards the question whether it exists (‘a maximum of 78 days’) but indefinite as regards the question of when it occurs?

               3.

               Does the framework agreement implemented by Directive 1999/70, in particular clause 3(1), preclude national legislation (Articles 325, 326 and 332 of the Navigation Code) in which the objective reasons for a fixed-term contract are expressed simply in terms of the voyage or voyages to be made, in essence equating the purpose of the contract (the service provided) with its cause (the reasons for fixing a term)?

               4.

               Does the framework agreement implemented by the directive preclude national legislation (in the present case the rules of the Navigation Code) that, in the event of the use of successive contracts (in such a way as to be considered abusive for the purposes of clause 5) excludes the transformation of those contracts into contracts of indefinite duration (as provided by Article 326 of the Navigation Code only in situations in which the seaman works continuously for more than a year and in situations in which the period between the ending of one contract and the drawing up of the following contract is no more than 60 days)?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case T-71/07: Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/53

         Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parliament
   (Case T-71/07)
   (2007/C 95/107)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braine-le-Château, Belgium) (represented by J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 31 January 2007, annulling the tender procedure EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003, in so far as concerns lot 2;

               —

               declare that the Community is non-contractually liable and order the European Parliament to pay compensation to the applicant for all the damage suffered as a result of the contested decision and to appoint an expert to assess that damage;

               —

               in any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 1 December 2006, the European Parliament rejected the applicant's tender submitted in the context of the tender procedure EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003, lot 2: programme contents, with a view to the creation of a European Parliament web television channel (1) and entered into a contract with another tenderer. That decision was the subject of an action for annulment brought by the applicant in the Court of First Instance on 19 December 2006 (2). In the context of interlocutory proceedings, the President of the Court of First Instance ordered, with interim effect, and in so far as the Parliament had already concluded the contract in accordance with the decision of 1 December 2006, the suspension of the operation of the contract. Following the hearing held in the interlocutory proceedings, the Parliament adopted the contested decision on 31 January 2007, by which it annulled the tender procedure at issue in so far as that procedure concerns lot 2.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. By the first plea it is alleged that the contested decision was unlawful, owing to the lack of competence of the author of the act and the infringement of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation (3). The applicant claims that no provision of Community law authorises the contracting authority to annul the award of a procurement contract after the signature of the contract with the successful tenderer. Moreover, it asserts that even if the defendant were competent to adopt the contested decision on the basis of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation, that provision does not authorise it to proceed to the partial annulment of the tender procedure.
   By the second plea, the applicant asserts that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, in so far as it does not make it possible to understand the reasons which led the defendant to adopt such a measure, or the legal basis on which it is founded or the reason for which the tender procedure was partially annulled (that is, in respect of lot 2 only).
   In addition to the annulment of the decision of 31 January 2007, the applicant claims compensation for all the damage it has suffered as a result of that decision.

      (1)  Contract notice: ‘European Parliament web television channel ’(OJ 2006 S 87-091412).

      (2)  Case T-383/06 Icuna.Com v Parliament, OJ 2007 C 20, p. 31.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/66/EC — Processing of personal data and protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector — Non-transposition)

text:
19.5.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/7
1.      Declares that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws,      1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1),
      with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the                    (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of
      European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on                  Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      a common framework for general authorisations and individual                Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of
      licences in the field of telecommunications services, the Grand             personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommuni-
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under              cations sector, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      that directive;                                                             obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
2.     Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear the costs.              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 192 of 8.07.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.02.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                                         of 25 January 2001
                          of 18 January 2001                                in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT
                                                                            — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another
                                                                            Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply —
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and
Directive 97/66/EC — Processing of personal data and                                                  disposal of waste)
protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector —
                           Non-transposition)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/13)
                            (2001/C 150/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic
                                                                            (Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot, then by
In Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communities                    K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam,) — application for a declar-
(Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                    ation that, by refusing to refund value added tax to taxable
Bellanger and A. Lercher) — application for a declaration that,             persons not established in France, in cases where those taxable
by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the                    persons had subcontracted part of their work to a taxable
Commission within the prescribed period the national                        person established in France, the French Republic has failed
measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2),             to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth Council Directive
(3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the                 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997                  the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection               Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24,                  persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ
p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             1979 L 331, p. 11), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court
under Article 15 of that directive — the Court (Fourth                      (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                      Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 January 2001, in
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                   which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, SL v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
C 160/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.6.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 11 March 1999                                                            of 11 March 1999
in Case T-151/94: British Steel plc v. Commission of the                    in Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, SL v.
                     European Communities (1)                                       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                             (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                 undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                       concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
            Systems for the exchange of information)                                    Systems for the exchange of information)
                           (1999/C 160/31)                                                             (1999/C 160/32)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
In case T-151/94: British Steel plc, having its registered office           In case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid, SL, having its
in London, represented by Philip G. H. Collins and John                     registered office in Madrid, represented by Antonio Creus and,
E. Pheasant, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxem-              initially, by Xavier Ruiz Calzado, and, subsequently, by Natalia
bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, v.                      Lacalle, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service in
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                   Brussels at the Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78, avenue d’Auder-
Julian Currall, Norbert Lorenz and Géraud Sajust de Bergues,                ghem, v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy                  initially Julian Currall, Francisco Enrique González-Diaz and
Charrier, assisted by James Flynn) — application, principally,              Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost,
for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                     Julian Currall and Guy Charrier, assisted by Ricardo Garcı́a
16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article               Vicente) — application for the annulment of Commission
65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                   Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a
practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ                     proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concern-
L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance                        ing agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                        pean producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the
C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,              Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,             sition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
has given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:                         A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
                                                                            1999, in which it:
1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted              1. fixes at 7 100 000 the amount of the fine imposed on the
     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as            applicant by article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
     it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement to share           16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     the Italian market which lasted three months,                               65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
                                                                                practices engaged in by European producers of beams,
2. sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
     of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 20 000 000,                             2. dismisses the remainder of the action,
3. dismisses the remainder of the action,                                   3. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay three
                                                                                quarters of the defendant’s costs, including those incurred in the
                                                                                interim proceedings. The defendant shall bear one quarter of its
4. orders the applicant to bear its own costsand to pay half of the              own costs.
     defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.                                                    (1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.


title: Case T-366/10 P: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Reimbursement of recoverable costs — Exception for parallel proceedings — Procedural defects — Rights of the defence — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/20

         Order of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-366/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Reimbursement of recoverable costs - Exception for parallel proceedings - Procedural defects - Rights of the defence - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 282/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Curral and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 22 June 2010 in Case F-78/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to annul that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-492/08: Action brought on 18 November 2008 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/40

         Action brought on 18 November 2008 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)
   (Case T-492/08)
   (2009/C 32/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Wessang (Zimmerbach, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Greinwald GmbH (Kempten, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008;

               —

               Uphold the opposition filed by Mr Nicolas WESSANG of 26 September 2005 against the application for registration of the mark STAR FOODS + device No 004105615;

               —

               Reject that application for registration No 004105615 in its entirety;

               —

               Order the company Greinwald GmbH to pay the whole of the costs incurred by Mr Nicolas WESSANG in the opposition proceedings, the appeal proceedings and the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Greinwald GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘star foods’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — application No 4 105 615

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nicolas Wessang

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative and word marks ‘STAR SNACKS’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition is upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the opposition

      Pleas in law: According to the applicant, there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue, to the extent that they are extremely similar both visually and phonetically or conceptually and refer to similar or even identical goods.


title: Case F-45/06: Action brought on  25 April 2006  — Martin Avendano and Others v Commission

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/39

         Action brought on 25 April 2006 — Martin Avendano and Others v Commission
   (Case F-45/06)
   (2006/C 143/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Javier Martin Avendano and Others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the refusal of the appointing authority to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

               —

               Inform the appointing authority of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

               —

               In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10 or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are officials of the old grades A7 or B2. Following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, their grades were replaced by grades A*8 and B*8 respectively, pursuant to Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. They maintain that their careers have been slowed down because the new system of classification provides for the insertion of the additional grades A*9 and B*9 between the old grades A7 (now A*8) and A6 (now A*10) and between the old grades B2 (now B*8) and B1 (now B*10).
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the application in their case of Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, without any specific measure to compensate for the loss suffered in terms of their careers, is unlawful. That plea of illegality is founded, first, on breach of the principle of equivalence between the old and new career structures, a principle laid down by Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. Pursuant to that provision, the appointing authority should have entered the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise.
   The applicants also claim to have been victims of a breach of the principle of equal treatment by comparison with their colleagues in grades A7 and B2 who were promoted before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.
   Lastly, the applicants allege, first, breach of the legitimate expectation created on their part by the assurances of the Council and Commission that the new career structure would not lead to any deterioration in their working conditions and, second, breach of their acquired rights and misuse of powers.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 July 1997 in Joined Cases C-34/95, C-35/95 and C-36/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstol): Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v. De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v. TV-Shop i Sverige AB ('Television without frontiers' Directive - Television advertising broadcast from a Member State - Prohibition of misleading advertising - Prohibition of advertising directed at children)

text:
No C 252/12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
consideration is in kind, when it permits a refund where              2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
the consideration is expressed in money.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             of 9 July 1997
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                              in Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95
                                                                      (references for a preliminary ruling from the
                          of 3 July 1997                              Marknadsdomstol ): Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v.
                                                                      De Agostini ( Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombuds
in     Case   C-60/96: Commission of the European                                mannen (KO ) v. TY-Shop i Sverige AB (')
              Communities v. French Republic (^
                                                                      ('Television without frontiers ' Directive — Television
 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT           advertising broadcast from a Member State — Prohibition
— Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Letting of tents,                    of misleading advertising — Prohibition of advertising
                   caravans or mobile homes)                                                 directed at children)
                          ( 97/C 252/22 )                                                        ( 97/C 252/23 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                  published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Joined Cases C-34/95 , C-35/95 and C-36/95 : references
                                                                      to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
 In Case C-60/96 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
                                                                      Marknadsdomstol ( Sweden ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      proceedings pending before that court between Konsumen
Traversa ) v. French Republic ( Agents: Catherine de Salins
 and Gautier Mignot) — Application for a declaration that,
                                                                      tombudsmannen ( KO ) and De Agostini ( Svenska ) Förlag
                                                                      AB ( C-34/95 ), and between Konsumentombudsmannen
 by introducing and maintaining in force an administrative
                                                                       ( KO ) and TV-Shop i Sverige AB ( C-35/95 and C-36/95 ) —
 provision extending to the letting of certain forms of
                                                                      on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 59 of the EC
 movable property the exemption from VAT which,
                                                                      Treaty and of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
 pursuant to Article 13 B ( b ) of the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                       1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down
 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
                                                                       by law, regulation or administrative action in Member
 laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
                                                                       States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
                                                                       activities ( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 ) — the
 assessment, is restricted exclusively to the letting of
                                                                       Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
                                                                       G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray
 fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive —
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
 the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                       Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
 President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H.
 P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges;             Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A.
 G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                       Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
                                                                       a judgment on 9 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
  1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on
  1 . declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force                the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
      an administrative provision extending to the letting of               law, regulation or administrative action in Member
      certain forms of movable property the exemption from                  States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      VAT which, pursuant to Article 13 B (b) of the Sixth                  activities does not preclude a Member State from
      Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                    taking, pursuant to general legislation on protection of
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States                        consumers against misleading advertising, measures
      relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   against an advertiser in relation to television
      added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is restricted                 advertising broadcast from another Member State,
      exclusively to the letting of immovable property, the                 provided that those measures do not prevent the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                  retransmission, as such, in its territory of television
      under Article 2 of that Directive;                                    broadcasts coming from that other Member State.
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/ 13
2 . On a proper construction of Article 30 of the EC                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     Treaty, a Member State is not precluded from taking,              court between Societe Civile Immobiliere Parodi and
     on the basis of provisions of its domestic legislation,           Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie — on the interpretation
     measures against an advertiser in relation to television          of Articles 59 and 61 (2 ) of the EEC Treaty — the Court,
     advertising, provided that those provisions affect in             composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Second and
     the same way, in law and in fact, the marketing of                Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, J. C. Moitinho
     domestic products and of those from other Member                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon ( Presidents of
     States, are necessary for meeting overriding                      Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
     requirements of general public importance or one of               Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm
     the aims laid down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty, are            ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
     proportionate for that purpose, and those aims or                 Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
     overriding requirements could not be met by measures              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 1997, the
     less restrictive of intra-Community trade.                        operative part of which is as follows :
3 . On a proper construction of Article 59 of the EC                    With regard to the period preceding the entry into force of
      Treaty, a Member State is not precluded from taking,             Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
     on the basis of provisions of its domestic legislation,           1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
     measures against an advertiser in relation to television          administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
     advertising. However, it is for the national court to             pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
     determine whether those provisions are necessary for              Directive 77/780/EEC, Article 59 of the EEC Treaty must
     meeting overriding requirements of general public                 be construed as precluding a Member State from requiring
     importance or one of the aims stated in Article 56 of             a credit institution already authorized in another Member
                                                                       State to obtain an authorization in order to be able to
     the EC Treaty, whether they are proportionate for that
     purpose and whether those aims or overriding                      grant a mortgage loan to a person resident within its
     requirements could be met by measures less restrictive            territory, unless that authorization:
     of intra-Community trade.
                                                                       — is required of every person or company pursuing such
                                                                            an activity within the territory of the Member State of
4 . Directive 89/552/EEC is to be interpreted as                            destination,
     precluding the application to television broadcasts
     from other Member States of a provision of a domestic             — is justified on grounds of public interest, such as
      broadcasting law which provides that advertisements                   consumer protection, and
      broadcast in commercial breaks on television must not
      be designed to attract the attention of children under
      12 years of age.                                                 — is objectively necessary to ensure compliance with the
                                                                            rules applicable in the sector under consideration and
                                                                            to protect the interests which those rules are intended
H OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                             to safeguard, and the same result cannot be achieved
                                                                            by less restrictive rules.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 208 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 9 July 1997
in Case C-222/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
by the French Cour de Cassation ): Société Civile                                                of 30 June 1997
 Immobilière Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie (')
                                                                       in Case C-66/97 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Free movement of capital — Freedom to provide services                the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Banco de
— Credit institutions — Grant of a mortgage loan —                     Fomento e Exterior SA v. Amândio Maurício Martins
Authorization requirement in the Member State in which                 Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim and
                      the service is provided)                                  Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) (')
                           ( 97/C 252/24 )                                   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/25 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-222/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177             In Case C- 66/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the French Cour de Cassation for a                  of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Civel da Comarca de


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2001 in Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competitions — Rules on the use of languages — Admissibility — Non-admission to the oral test — Access to documents)

text:
C 161/16                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.6.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 February 2001
                          of 6 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha v the Commission of the                        (Officials — Competitions — Rules on the use of languages
                    European Communities (1)                                — Admissibility — Non-admission to the oral test — Access
                                                                                to documents)
(Officials — VAT-free importation of personal effects —                                               (2001/C 161/35)
    Action for damages — Breach of administrative duty)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2001/C 161/34)                                   In Case T-118/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official of the
                                                                            Commission posted to the Joint Research Centre at Ispra,
                                                                            represented by M. Rizzoglio and F. Colussi, Avvocati, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application for
                    (Language of the case: French)                          the annulment of the decision of the selection board in
                                                                            competition COM/B/18/96 not to admit the applicant to the
                                                                            oral tests in that competition and, if necessary, the annulment
                                                                            of the list drawn up on the basis of the written tests and of the
In Case T-77/99: Girish Ojha, an official in the Commission of
the European Communities, residing in Bierbeek (Belgium),                   final list of successful candidates in the competition —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
represented by Antonietta Ottati and Marc Dallemagne, avo-
                                                                            B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
cats, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for compensation to               J. Palacio González, Administrator, gave a judgment on
                                                                            7 February 2001, in which it:
make good the material and non-material damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of being deprived of use of his
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
vehicle during the period running from 1 February 1996 to
31 December 1997— the Court of First Instance (First                        2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras
and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:                               (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
1.    orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
      BFR 35 000 by way of compensation for the material damage
      caused to him, together with interest at an annual rate of
      interest of 6,75 %, with effect from delivery of the judgment
      until actual payment;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;                                                     of 6 March 2001
                                                                            in Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett and Others v Euro-
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half                              pean Investment Bank (1)
      of those of the applicant;
                                                                            (General principle of labour law common to the Member
                                                                            States — Bona fide consultation of staff representatives —
4.    orders the applicant to bear one half of its own costs.                              Abolition of a financial advantage)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/36)
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.99.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-192/99: Roderick Dunnett, residing in Luxembourg
                                                                            (Luxembourg), Thomas Hackett, residing in Rameldange (Lux-
                                                                            embourg), Mateo Turró Calvet, residing in Rameldange,


title: Case C-655/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Panrico, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-534/13 Panrico v OHIM

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/3

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by Panrico, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2015 in Case T-534/13 Panrico v OHIM
   (Case C-655/15 P)
   (2016/C 118/04)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Panrico, S.A. (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and HDN Development Corp.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in full, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 October 2015, in Case T-534/14;

               —

               uphold the claim made before the General Court for the revocation or annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 July 2013, in Case R623/2011-4;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the applicant relies on the following grounds alleging the infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and the case-law interpreting those provisions:

      First ground of appeal alleging an error of law in identifying the dominant element of the signs at issue, and comparing those signs, without taking into account the relevant market context and the perspective of the relevant public on the degree of distinctiveness of those signs and/or of the elements of which those signs are composed

   In order to analyse properly — that is to say, in accordance with logic and law — the similarity of the signs compared, it is indispensable to first contextualise that analysis by placing it in the relevant market, so as to adopt the perspective of the average consumer in the specific relevant territory. According to the appeal, the judgment under appeal, far from adopting a contextualised perspective, failed to take into account: (i) The acknowledged maximal degree of distinctiveness of the element DONUT (or DOUGHNUTS in its phonetic form) in the relevant territory, and (ii) the dominant character which the average consumer in the relevant territory will inevitably assign to the element DOUGHNUTS (or DONUTS) when it appears integrated in any composite mark, such as the mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’.

      Second ground of appeal, linked to the first, alleging that the General Court did not properly consider the well-known (and reputed) character of the earlier marks of PANRICO, S.A.

   The judgment under appeal did not taken into account, in all respects, the importance of the well-known and reputed character of the earlier marks in evaluating the likelihood of confusion. That is particularly relevant since it is settled case-law that the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater the likelihood of confusion, particularly as regards marks with a reputation.

      Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the judgment under appeal disregarded the criteria developed by the case-law on the evaluation of the likelihood of confusion, including that of association

   In particular:

               —

               the erroneous assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue, by (i) failing to attribute to the element DOUGHNUTS the dominant character which it enjoys in conjunction with the mark ‘Krispy Kreme DOUGHNUTS’, and (ii) failing to assess correctly the similarity between the element ‘DOUGHNUTS’ and the earlier marks DONUT and/or DONUTS;

               —

               the erroneous assessment of the similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks at issue.

      Fourth ground of appeal alleging an error of law in that the General Court failed to find undue use of the distinctive character of the earlier marks DONUT and DONUTS, and a clear prejudice to those marks.


title: Case C-392/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Article 15(1) and (3) — Agricultural products — System of export refunds — Differentiated export refund — Conditions for granting — Import of the product into the third country of destination — Payment of import duties)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-392/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Article 15(1) and (3) - Agricultural products - System of export refunds - Differentiated export refund - Conditions for granting - Import of the product into the third country of destination - Payment of import duties)
   2012/C 73/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Suiker Unie GmbH — Zuckerfabrik Anklam

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 15(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) and of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Product exported from a Member State to a third State for the purpose of substantial processing under the inward processing procedure without payment of import duty — Export of the product resulting from that processing to another third State — Conditions for the grant of a differentiated export refund — Need to place the product in free circulation in the third State of destination with payment of import duty?

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 444/2003 of 11 March 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition for receipt of a differentiated refund laid down by that article, namely completion of the customs import formalities, is not satisfied when in the third country of destination, following release for inward processing without collection of import duties, the product undergoes a ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and the product resulting from that processing or working is exported to a third country.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 1999 in Case C-57/98 P: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas (ATM) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - State aid - Reduction of social charges - Decision not to act on the complaint - Interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 333/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                           of 8 July 1999
                                                                                of 5 May 1999
in Case C-354/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-57/98 P: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas
                                                                             (ATM) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
               to implement Directive 96/97/EC)
                                                                           (Appeal — State aid — Reduction of social charges —
                                                                           Decision not to act on the complaint — Interest in bringing
                          (1999/C 333/19)                                                  proceedings — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/20)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-354/98: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-57/98 P: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas
(Agent: Marie Wolfcarius) v French Republic (Agents: Kareen                (ATM), an association incorporated under Spanish law, estab-
Rispal-Bellanger and Anne de Bourgoing) — application for a                lished in Madrid, represented by Juan Eugenio Blanco Rodrı́g-
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            uez and Bernardo Vicente Hernández Bataller, of the Madrid
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directi-                   Chambers of André Sérébriacoff, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal
ve 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of                    against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
equal treatment for men and women in occupational social                   European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Compo-
security schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20), the French Republic                sition) of 18 December 1997 in Case T-178/94 ATM v Com-
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the            mission [1997] ECR II-2529, seeking to have that judgment
Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the              set aside and to have the claims put forward by the applicant
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;                 at first instance upheld, the other party to the proceedings
A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given            being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                    Francisco Santaolalla and Juan Guerra Fernández) — the Court
                                                                           (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
                                                                           the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann,
1. Declared that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and        Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council             made an order on 5 May 1999, the operative part of which is
    Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directi-               as follows:
    ve 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
    treatment for men and women in occupational social security
    schemes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations      1. The appeal is dismissed.
    under that directive;
                                                                           2. The Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas is ordered to pay the
2. Ordered the French Republic to pay the costs.                                costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.


title: Case C-88/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Philippe Gruslin v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) — Directive 85/611/EEC — Article 45 — Concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’  — Delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Philippe Gruslin v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA
   (Case C-88/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) - Directive 85/611/EEC - Article 45 - Concept of ‘payments to unit-holders’ - Delivery to unit-holders of certificates for registered units))
   2014/C 409/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Philippe Gruslin

      Defendant: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The obligation laid down in Article 45 of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of 29 June 1995, under which an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities which markets its units within the territory of a Member State other than that in which it is situated is required to make payments to unit-holders in the Member State of marketing, must be interpreted as not including the delivery to unit-holders of certificates providing evidence of title to units which are registered in their name in the register of unit-holders kept by the issuer.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 May 2005 in Case C-438/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt in criminal proceedings against Krister Hanner (Articles 28 EC, 31 EC, 43 EC and 86(2) EC — Marketing of medicinal preparations — Establishment of retail traders — National monopoly on the retail of medicinal preparations — Undertaking entrusted with providing a service of general economic interest)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 31 May 2005
   in Case C-438/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt in criminal proceedings against Krister Hanner (1)

   (Articles 28 EC, 31 EC, 43 EC and 86(2) EC - Marketing of medicinal preparations - Establishment of retail traders - National monopoly on the retail of medicinal preparations - Undertaking entrusted with providing a service of general economic interest)
   (2005/C 182/03)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-438/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden), made by decision of 29 November 2002, received at the Court on 4 December 2002, in criminal proceedings against Krister Hanner, the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 31(1) EC precludes a sales regime which grants an exclusive retail right and is arranged in the same way as the sales regime at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 08.02.2003.


title: Case T-8/16: Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/52

         Action brought on 5 January 2016 — Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea v Commission
   (Case T-8/16)
   (2016/C 098/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. (Tokyo, Japan), and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corp. (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Bay, J. Ruiz Calzado, A. Aresu and A. Scordamaglia-Tousis, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, the decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 in Case AT.39639 — Optical Disk Drives, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement;

               —

               further, or in the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs; and

               —

               make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of essential procedural requirements and of the applicants’ rights of defence, resulting from the inconsistent legal characterisation of the conduct, the contradictory, or the very least, insufficient reasoning regarding the legal characterisation of the alleged infringement, the failure to give access to exculpatory evidence, and the reliance on several legal and factual elements in the contested decision that were not addressed in the statement of objections.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in the application of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the finding of an effect on trade between Members States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in the determination of the geographic scope of the infringement of Article 101 TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in the application of Article 101 TFEU in relation to the finding of a single infringement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in respect of the applicants’ alleged awareness of the whole single infringement and, more specifically, of the participation of all other addresses.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law regarding the starting date of the applicants’ alleged participation to whole single infringement.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging errors of fact and law in relation to the scope of the infringement imputed to the applicants by finding that the applicants were involved in anticompetitive ‘agreements’.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to good administration and of related general principles of EU law resulting from the manifestly excessive duration of the investigation.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging errors in the calculation of the fine, resulting from:

                           —

                           the Commission’s failure to take account of the fact that (a) the applicants are a single-product undertaking, (b) additional circumstances limiting the gravity of the applicants’ individual conduct and mitigating circumstances; and

                           —

                           the Commission’s failure to give proper weight to the specific circumstances of the infringement in setting the level of the general gravity multiplier and the entry fee.


title: Case T-352/17: Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/69

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
   (Case T-352/17)
   (2017/C 239/80)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, A. Daoût and M. Dekleermaker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

         Consequently:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017;

               —

               Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 14 March 2017;

               —

               Order reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss caused by the contested decisions, or award the applicant the sum of EUR 19 180;

               —

               In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of freedom of expression, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 52 of the Charter, with the particular circumstance that the remarks referred to in the contested decisions were made by a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his functions and inside the premises of the European Union institutions, and infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, of Article 41 of the Charter, of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, of Article 296 TFEU, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, the general principle of proportionality, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 233, 28.9.2002

text:
C 247/28        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         12.10.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 247/43)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 233, 28.9.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 219, 14.9.2002
         OJ C 202, 24.8.2002
         OJ C 191, 10.8.2002
         OJ C 180, 27.7.2002
         OJ C 169, 13.7.2002
         OJ C 156, 29.6.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-93/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/32

         Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-93/13)
   2013/C 336/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the accrual of pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and, therefore, inapplicable;

               —

               Annul the decision of 3 October 2012 to accredit the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of their transfer into the pension scheme applicable to staff of the European institutions, pursuant to the General Implementing Provisions (‘the GIP’) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-335/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 15 June 2016 — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici (Croatia) lodged on 15 June 2016 — VG Čistoća d.o.o. v Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika
   (Case C-335/16)
   (2016/C 296/31)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VG Čistoća d.o.o.

      Defendants: Đuro Vladika, Ljubica Vladika

      Question referred

   How is the fee for the collection and transport of household waste calculated in accordance with EU law? How do Union citizens pay the invoices for the collection and transport of municipal waste, that is, do they pay for the collection and transport of household waste according to the volume of the empty bins or containers, or according to the volume of refuse collected, and is any other item included within the fee?


title: Case T-905/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/42

         Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Chefaro Ireland v EUIPO — Laboratoires M&L (NUIT PRECIEUSE)
   (Case T-905/16)
   (2017/C 053/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chefaro Ireland DAC (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratoires M&L SA (Manosque, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NUIT PRECIEUSE’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 063 952

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 in Case R 2596/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Chefaro Ireland.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-250/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium)) — United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL v État Belge (Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — National legislation requiring cable operators to broadcast programmes transmitted by certain private broadcasters ( must carry ) — Restriction — Overriding reason relating to the general interest — Maintenance of pluralism in a bilingual region)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium)) — United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL v État Belge
   (Case C-250/06) (1)

   (Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - National legislation requiring cable operators to broadcast programmes transmitted by certain private broadcasters (‘must carry’) - Restriction - Overriding reason relating to the general interest - Maintenance of pluralism in a bilingual region)
   (2008/C 51/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SPRL, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL

      Defendant: État Belge

      Intervening parties: BeTV SA, Tvi SA, Télé Bruxelles ASBL, Belgian Business Television SA, Media ad Infinitum SA, TV5-Monde,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 86 EC — Definition of ‘special right’ — Obligation imposed on cabled distribution companies to distribute television programmes broadcast by certain broadcasting organisations established mainly in national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 49 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which requires, by virtue of a must-carry obligation, cable operators providing services on the relevant territory of that State to broadcast television programmes transmitted by private broadcasters falling under the public powers of that State and designated by the latter, where such legislation:

               —

               pursues an aim in the general interest, such as the retention, pursuant to the cultural policy of that Member State, of the pluralist character of the television programmes available in that territory, and

               —

               is not disproportionate in relation to that objective, which means that the manner in which it is applied must be subject to a transparent procedure based on objective non-discriminatory criteria known in advance.

         It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-58/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 February 2008 — Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 February 2008 — Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
   (Case C-58/08)
   (2008/C 107/25)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vodafone Ltd, Telefónica O2 Europe plc, T-Mobile International AG, Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd

      Defendants: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

      Interested parties: Office of Communications, Hutchison 3G (UK) Limited

      Intervener: GSM Association
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 (1) invalid, in whole or in part, by reason of the inadequacy of Article 95 EC as a legal basis?

               2.

               Is Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 (together with Articles 2(a) and 6(3) insofar as they refer to the Eurotariff and obligations relating to the Eurotariff) invalid on the grounds that the imposition of a price ceiling in respect of retail roaming charges infringes the principle of proportionality and/or subsidiarity?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2007 on roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the Community and amending Directive 2002/21/EC (OJ L 171, p. 32).


title: Case T-361/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Hand Held Products v OHIM — Orange Brand Services (DOLPHIN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark DOLPHIN — Earlier Community word mark DOLPHIN — Opposition refused in part — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Hand Held Products v OHIM — Orange Brand Services (DOLPHIN)
   (Case T-361/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark DOLPHIN - Earlier Community word mark DOLPHIN - Opposition refused in part - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hand Held Products, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by P. Bullock and R. Pethke and subsequently by P. Bullock and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Orange Brand Services Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1443/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Hand Held Products, Inc. and Orange Brand Services Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1443/2010-1) in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of electrical and electronic accessories;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Hand Held Products, Inc. and OHIM each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.