title: Case C-372/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/17

         Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-372/05)
   (2005/C 296/33)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dr. Günter Wilms, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by refusing in the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002, to calculate and transfer own resources which were not levied on the import of military equipment exempt from duty and to pay to the Commission default interest as a result of not making available the own resources, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2, Article 9, Article 10 and Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 (1) and Regulation No 1150/2000 (2);

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Federal Republic of Germany granted exemptions from duty on the import of military goods as from 1 January 1998 and therefore paid no own resources. The defendant did not, despite the request made of it, calculate the amount of own resources which had not, on account of that exemption from duty, been paid and made available to the Commission in due time. Furthermore, the defendant refused to provide the detailed information relating to the actual imports which was needed in order to calculate the default interest and also refused to pay the default interest.
   That exemption from duty constitutes a breach of Article 26 of the EC Treaty as well as of Article 20 of the Community Customs Code which cannot be justified by relying on Article 296 EC. Article 296 EC must, as an exception to the general principle of levying duty, be interpreted strictly and, in accordance with that strict interpretation, the Member State which wishes to rely on that provision must establish the existence of all the conditions for it to be applicable.
   In the present case it means that it is for the German authorities to establish the extent to which the levying of duties jeopardises the essential security interests of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Member State must also establish that under the particular circumstances there was a concrete threat to state security. The German authorities, however, provided no concrete information or arguments as to how and why defence capabilities are impaired by the levy of certain duties. Other Member States levy duties on such imports without making the objection that this is a threat to their national security. In regard to those Member States, the acceptance of that exemption would be unjust and irresponsible as they would have to bear the financial consequences.
   Nor can the taking into account of military secrecy, which has been argued by the German authorities, justify such a breach of Community law as the safeguarding of the confidentiality of sensitive data on the part of the Community institutions is only a procedural issue which cannot exempt the defendant from its substantive duty to pay the appropriate own resources to the Community.
   The fact that Council Regulation No 150/2003 renders possible, subject to certain conditions, the suspension of import duties in respect of the specified goods after its coming into force on 1 January 2003 provides no basis for justifying a prior infringement of Community customs law: before the coming into force of that Regulation there had been no suspension of the Common Customs Tariff, the duties had to be levied and the appropriate own resources paid to the Community by 31 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1


title: Case T-152/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/24

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v OHIM
   (Case T-152/11)
   2011/C 139/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft mbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2010 in Case R 449/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark ‘MAD’ for goods in Class 25.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection in part of the claim.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and of Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2968/95, (2) in that the Board of Appeal should not have reached the conclusion on the basis of the documents submitted as proof of use that the figurative mark ‘MAD’ is in genuine use for ‘items of clothing’.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-533/14 P: Order of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Kolarova v REA (Appeals — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — REA — Powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment — Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) — Appeal directed against the delegating institution — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/29

         Order of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — Kolarova v REA
   (Case T-533/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - REA - Powers conferred on the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment - Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) - Appeal directed against the delegating institution - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part))
   (2015/C 381/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Desislava Kolarova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 in Kolarova v REA (Case F-88/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:58), and seeking that that order be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Mrs Desislava Kolarova to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Research Executive Agency (REA) on the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-435/04: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  30 May 2006  — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Victor Leroy (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Vehicle leasing — Prohibition on using in a Member State a vehicle belonging to a leasing company established in another Member State and registered in that State — Permanent use on the territory of the first Member State)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/12

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2006 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Sébastien Victor Leroy
   (Case C-435/04) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Vehicle leasing - Prohibition on using in a Member State a vehicle belonging to a leasing company established in another Member State and registered in that State - Permanent use on the territory of the first Member State)
   (2006/C 178/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Criminal proceedings against
   Sébastien Victor Leroy
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation, Belgium — Interpretation of Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty with regard to national legislation prohibiting, on pain of criminal penalties, a person who resides and works in the national territory from using a vehicle which belongs to a leasing company established in another Member State and registered in that State
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 49 EC to 55 EC do not preclude the domestic legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from prohibiting a person who resides and works in that State from using, in that State, a vehicle which he has rented from a leasing company established in another Member State, when that vehicle has not been registered in the first State and it is intended that it should be used there essentially on a permanent basis or is, in fact, used in that manner.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-395/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014  — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/65

         Action brought on 28 May 2014 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)
   (Case T-395/14)
   2014/C 315/109
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2014 in Case R 1695/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50  518 invalid in respect of Class 28;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50  518

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lego Juris A/S

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: absolute grounds for invalidity and bad faith

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Action brought on 22 September 1995 by Tidningen Journalisten, Svenska Journalistförbundets Tidning, against the Council of the European Union (Case T-174/95)

text:
 No C 299/ 1 8           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11 . 11 . 95
 Borlandi , of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in            linguistic knowledge was based on his poor knowledge of a
 Luxembourg at the office of Marisa Ruggeri Montanelli ,                second foreign language . That , however, constituted a
 6 Rue de l'Fxole , Nospelt .                                           manifest breach by the Selection Board of the spirit of the
                                                                        notice of competition . Although knowledge of a second
                                                                        foreign language could be taken into consideration and thus
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        confer higher marks , the absence of such knowledge could
                                                                        not in any way justify a mark less than 50% of the
 — annul at least the oral test of Internal Competition No              maximum , since that knowledge was not a requirement for
      CJ 51 /93 ' administrative assistants '1 for the constitution     admission .
      of a reserve list of administrative assistants ( m/fi of
      Grade B 5 / B 4 ,
 — annul the consequent decisions of the appointing
      authority concerning the reserve list drawn up by the
      Selection Board ,
— annul the decision of the Complaints Committee ,                     Action brought on 22 September 1995 by Tidningen
      communicated to the applicant on 21 June 1995 ,                  Journalisten, Svenska Journalistforbundets Tidning, against
      rejecting his complaint lodged on 14 March 1995 ( Cont .                       the Council of the European Union
      5 / 95 R ),                                                                               ( Case T- 174 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/31 )
— order the Court of Justice to pay the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the ease : English)
 Picas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant bases his action on the irregularities which             An action against the Council of the European Union was
vitiated the oral test in which he took part .                         brought before the Court of Eirst Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities on 22 September 1995 by Tidningen
According to the notice of competition , that oral test was to         Journalisten , Svenska Journalistforbundets Tidning,
consist of a discussion with the Selection Board to enable it          represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Frederic P. Louis
to assess : ( a ) the knowledge and professional experience of         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
candidates and the level of their linguistic knowledge ; and           of Me Marc Loesch , 1 1 , rue Goethe .
( b ) the attitude and motivation of candidates and their
fitness for the duties to be performed . It follows                     I he applicant claims that the Court should :
unequivocally from that statement that the test must
constitute a genuine dialogue between the candidate and the
members of the Selection Board , and must be conducted in              — annul the Council 's decision of 6 July 1995 , refusing to
the first language chosen by the candidate, except of course                grant access to the documents requested by the
in so far as the examination of linguistic knowledge is                     applicant,
concerned .
                                                                       — order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant
At the applicant's oral test, the members of the Selection                  to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Board read the questions they put, thereby demonstrating                    First Instance , including the costs of any interveners .
that they were unable either to put the questions
spontaneously or, through not having prepared them in
advance, to add new questions or ask for clarification of the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
replies given by the candidate . In those circumstances , the
applicant has reason to doubt the fitness of the members of            The applicant, the weekly , non-profit-making magazine of
the Selection Board to conduct the oral test in Italian and to         the Swedish Union of Journalists , seeks the annulment of a
conclude that assessments made and marks awarded bv the                refusal by the Council of the European Union to grant access
Selection Board might well have been affected by linguistic            to certain documents which were requested in the context of
considerations . In any event, they were made in a context of          Council Decision 93 /731 /EC of 20 December 1993 on
disparity between candidates , some of whom spoke in                   public access to Council documents .
languages which the members of the Selection Board knew
perfectly , thereby enabling a genuine dialogue to take place ,        The applicant explains that , on 6 July 1995 , the Council
as had been precluded from happening in the applicant 's               refused to grant it access to 16 out of the 20 documents
case .
                                                                       relating to Europol which had been requested by it, stating
                                                                       that the divulgation of such documents would damage the
As for the assessment of his linguistic knowledge, and in              public interest, and specifically public security, and that
particular his knowledge of official languages of the                  those documents relate to the Council 's proceeding,
European Union other than Italian , the applicant maintains            including the positions taken by members of the Council ,
that, judging by the reply to his complaint by the                     and fell therefore within the scope of the duty of
Complaints Committee , the insufficient mark given for                 confidentiality .
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 299/ 19
The applicant submits that the Council 's refusal violates the               Removal from the register of Case T- 112/92 ( ] )
fundamental rights of access to the European Union                                                  ( 95 /C 299/33 )
Institutions ' documents, as well as the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations and Articles 4(1 ) and                          (Language of the case: English )
4 ( 2 ) of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC inasmuch as it
wrongfully applies the criteria for refusal laid down in said         By order of 11 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
provisions . It considers furthermore that the Council 's             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
refusal should be annulled on the ground of its failure to            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
state reasons for the refusal .
                                                                      T- 1 1 2/92 : John Cooney v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Comm unities .
                                                                      (') Q | No C : 34 , 6 . 2 . 1 993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 September 1995                                     Removal from the register of Case T-425/93 (')
in Case T-95 /94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des                                                  ( 95 /C 299/34 )
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink's France SARL v. Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: English )
                       Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Complaint by a competitor — Failure to initiate          By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First
the investigation procedure — Right to a fair hearing —               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                    Action for annulment)                             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 95 /C 299/32 )                            from the register of Case T-425/93 : David Wilcox v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C : 2.38 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
In Case T-95/94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink 's France SARL, represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grande-Rue , v.                            Removal from the register of Case T-430/93 ( )
Commission of the European Communities ( agents : Michel                                            ( 95 /C 299/35 )
Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the French Republic
( agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) —                              (Language of the case: Erench)
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 31 December 1993 rejecting the applicants ' request for a          By order of 11 August 1995 the President of the First
declaration by the Commission that the French Republic                Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
has infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
aid to Securipost SA — the Court of First Instance                    from the register of Case T-430/93 : Jean Trelhu v. Council
( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ), composed of                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
K. Lenaerts , President, and R. Schintgen , C. P. Briet,              Communities .
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1995 , in             (') OJ No C 54 , 25 . 5 . 1993 .
which it :
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 31 December 1993
     rejecting the applicants ' request for a declaration by the
     Commission that the French Republic has infringed                                   Removal from the register of
     Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting aid to                         Joined Cases T-436/93 to T -441 /93 (')
     Securipost;                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/36 )
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                             (Language of the case: English)
     the costs of the applicants;
                                                                      By order of 12 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
 3 . orders the Erench Republic to bear its own costs .               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') O J No C 103 , 11.4 . 1994 .
                                                                      from the register of Joined Cases T-436/93 to T-441 /93 :
                                                                      British Petroleum Company pic , Barclays Bank pic , Flanson
                                                                      pic , Lucas Industries Public Limited Company , Mars UK
                                                                       Limited , Mars G.B. Limited , Intercontinental Trading


title: Case C-535/10 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2010 by 4care AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-575/08 4careAG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/23

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2010 by 4care AG against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2010 in Case T-575/08 4careAG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case C-535/10 P)
   ()
   2011/C 30/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: 4care AG (represented by: S. Redeker, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Laboratorios Diafarm, S.A.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court of 8 September in Case T-575/08 and reject the objection by the intervener;

               —

               Order the defendant and the intervener to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal seeks to set aside the judgment of the General Court, by which it dismissed the appellant’s action seeking to annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 October 2008 concerning the rejection of its application for registration of the figurative sign ‘Acumed’. The Court confirmed by its judgment the Board of Appeal’s decision, according to which there was a likelihood of confusion with the earlier national word mark ‘AQUAMED ACTIVE’.
   The contested judgment of the Court infringes Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The Court wrongly interpreted the distinctive character of the opposing mark, the similarity of the opposing signs and the question of the likelihood of confusion.
   In the context of the assessment of distinctive character, the Court failed to take into account sufficiently the descriptive character of the term ‘AQUAMED’ in the opposing mark. Moreover the Court misjudged the importance of the numerous earlier third party marks referred to by the appellant. The term ‘AQUAMED ACTIVE’ was not only inherently weakly distinctive because of the use of descriptive sign elements which were to a large extent common on the market. In addition, the distinctive character was weakened subsequently because of the use of similar third party marks in the course of trade. Had the Court correctly assessed those elements, it would have come to the conclusion that the opposing mark ‘AQUAMED ACTIVE’ was at most very weakly distinctive and therefore enjoyed limited protection.
   In the context of the assessment of the similarity of the signs, the Court omitted to consider significant facts and therefore failed to carry out a comprehensive assessment. The Court wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the element ‘ACTIVE’ within the opposing mark fell to be disregarded completely when comparing the signs, it being necessary to compare only the terms ‘AQUAMED’ and ‘Acumed’. The Court thereby neglected the fact that the terms ‘AQUAMED’ and ‘ACTIVE’ are closely connected, which precludes the term ‘ACTIVE’ from being completely disregarded. Had the Court compared the opposing mark ‘AQUAMED ACTIVE’ in its entirety to the mark applied for, it would have had to reject a similarity between the signs.
   Even if — wrongly — only the terms ‘AQUAMED’ and ‘Acumed’ were to be compared, the Court in any case misjudged the likelihood of confusion from a legal point of view. In so doing, it disregarded a number of earlier decisions in which, in similar circumstances, a likelihood of confusion was ruled out. In addition, the Court failed to take into account that, given the limited protection to be given to the opposing mark, already limited differences between the signs would suffice to rule out a likelihood of confusion. Had the Court taken that into account, it would have come to the conclusion that the mark applied for in any case remained sufficiently different from the opposing mark on the ground of figurative, phonetic and conceptual differences.


title: Case T-38/02: Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Groupe Danone against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.4.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 97/15
In support of its claims, the applicant association puts forward             laws. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the
the following pleas and arguments:                                           ‘Legge Amato’ had been expressly considered by the
                                                                             defendant on various occasions in connection with
                                                                             Sicilian banks and the Banco di Napoli. In the latter
—    The fiscal measures in favour of mergers between banking                connection, the applicant pleads infringement of the
     institutions are not selective and do not constitute ad hoc             principles of the protection of legitimate expectations,
     aid. It should be borne in mind in that regard that the                 proportionality and legal certainty.
     introduction of fiscal incentives for mergers between
     banking institutions, as provided for under the Italian
     rules since 1990, the primary aim of which is to facilitate
     the privatisation of the sector, is solely intended to
     improve the functioning and flexibility of the tax rules
     with specific reference to the reality of the developments
     taking place in the Italian banking system.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Groupe Danone
—    The fiscal measures provided for in favour of transfers of          against the Commission of the European Communities
     capital goods and equipment to institutions do not
     constitute aid, inasmuch as they do not involve any
     effective waiver by the State of the collection of tax                                     (Case T-38/02)
     revenues.
                                                                                (2002/C 97/29)
—    Neither of those types of fiscal measures distorts or
     threatens to distort competition. No preliminary investi-                            (Language of the case: French)
     gation whatever has been carried out by the Commission
     in relation to this point. It must be emphasised in that
     regard that, compared with their competitors in the
     Community, Italian banks are additionally penalised by a          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     higher tax burden which cannot easily be reconciled with          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     the tax regimes applying in other Member States.                  European Communities on 22 February 2002 by Groupe
                                                                       Danone, established in Paris, represented by Antoine Winckler
                                                                       and Marc Waha, lawyers.
—    The fiscal measures adopted in relation to mergers
     between banking institutions do not affect trade between
     Member States.                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the decision in issue, pursuant to Article 230 of
—    No preliminary investigation has been carried out, and                  the EC Treaty;
     no statement of reasons has been given as to why this
     case does not concern de minimis aid.
                                                                       —     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                             the decision, pursuant to Article 229 of the EC Treaty;
—    The defendant’s refusal to carry out any specific assess-
     ment of the Italian rules in question meant that it was not       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
     able to gain a better understanding of the scope and
     content of those rules; this would probably have enabled
     it to ascertain that they complied with Article 87(1) and
     (3) EC and correctly to assess the appropriateness of
     their intended purpose. In actual fact, the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments
     understood neither the content nor the scope of the
     Italian rules forming the subject-matter of the case.
                                                                       The decision contested in the present case concerns two
                                                                       agreements relating to the Belgian beer market. The first was
—    In the contested decision, the Commission, when asses-            concluded between Interbrew N.V. and Brouwerijen Alken-
     sing the possible incompatibility of certain provisions of        Maes N.V. It included, in particular, a general ‘non-aggression
     the law in question for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC,         pact’, an agreement regarding retail prices and a market-
     wholly failed to take into account the significance, dealt        sharing arrangement in the hotel/restaurant/café sector. The
     with at length in the procedure before the Commission,            Commission has not censured Alken-Maes for having partici-
     of the common validity and continuity of the ‘Legge               pated in that agreement, but only its majority shareholder at
     Amato’ (Law No 218 of 30 July 1990) and the ‘Legge                the time, namely the applicant, on account of its own
     Ciampi’ in the context of the privatisation of the Italian        participation in the agreement and the fact that it formed an
     banking system, which was initiated by the first of those         economic entity with Alken-Maes.
 ---pagebreak--- C 97/16                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
The defendant has also established the existence of a second             Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Jungbunzlauer
agreement, concerning beers sold under distributors’ brand               AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
names, concluded between Interbrew, Alken-Maes, Haacht and                                               ties
Martens, involving market-sharing and collusion in respect of
price-fixing. As regards that second agreement, the contested
decision does not censure the applicant in relation to the acts                                    (Case T-43/02)
of its former subsidiary, since it was not involved therein.
                                                                                (2002/C 97/30)
The applicant does not challenge the basic findings underlying
the contested decision. In support of its claims, it puts forward                           (Language of the case: German)
the following pleas in law and main arguments:
—     The Commission has infringed the principles of propor-
      tionality and equal treatment by taking the sum of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      25 million EUR as the ‘basic amount’ of the fine.                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 February 2002 by Jungbunzlau-
                                                                         er AG, of Basle (Switzerland), represented by R. Bechtold,
—     The decision is factually unfounded, inasmuch as it finds          M. Karl and U. Soltész, lawyers.
      that the infringement lasted from 28 January 1993 to
      28 January 1998. In so finding, the Commission applied
      too high a multiplier to the amount of the fine.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     The decision is factually unfounded in so far as it finds          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001
      that the applicant forced Interbrew to participate in the                (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid);
      agreement.
                                                                         —     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of the
—     The decision is unfounded in law and in fact, in that there              decision;
      was no justification for increasing the fine on account of
      the fact that the applicant had already been found on two
      earlier occasions to have acted unlawfully. In that regard,        —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      the Commission has infringed the principles of ‘nulla
      poena sine lege’, ‘ne bis in idem’ and legal certainty.
—     The decision is unfounded in law and in fact, inasmuch
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      as it reduces the fine by only 10 % on account of
      mitigating circumstances. It omitted to take into account
      the influence of the price control system and the tradition
      of concerted practices in the brewing sector, the fact that        The subject-matter of the dispute is the Commission’s decision
      the agreement had no effect on the market, the dependent           of 5 December 2001 (Case COMP/E-1/36.604 — Citric acid)
      situation of Alken-Maes by comparison with the domi-               in which the Commission found that the applicant and
      nant position occupied by Interbrew, the financial difficul-       four other undertakings had infringed Article 81(1) EC and
      ties facing Alken-Maes and the crisis situation prevailing         Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in that they had participated
      during the period in question.                                     in a continuing agreement and/or a concerted practice in the
                                                                         citric acid sector. A fine of EUR 17,64 million was imposed on
                                                                         the applicant.
—     The decision is unfounded in law and in fact, inasmuch
      as it finds that the applicant contested the facts alleged
      against it. In that respect, the applicant should have been
      entitled to a substantial reduction in the fine.                   First, the applicant claims that the decision was directed to the
                                                                         wrong addressee. The decision should, in fact, have been
                                                                         directed to Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GesmbH, an associate
                                                                         company of the applicant.
The applicant company also pleads violation of its rights of
defence and failure on the part of the Commission to comply
with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Commission did not adequately
                                                                         establish the actual effects on the market and that it refused to
                                                                         take into account, in the applicant’s favour, the fact that
                                                                         Jungbunzlauer Gesmbh played a special role in the cartel.


title: Case T-528/15: Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/48

         Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)
   (Case T-528/15)
   (2015/C 381/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo SpA Servizi Commerciali (Illasi, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Bimbo’ — Application for registration No 10 028 405

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2015 in Joined Cases R 2512/2013-4 and R 2549/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               modify the contested decision in accordance with Article 65.3 CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application no 10 028 405 in class 28;

               —

               subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, annul the contested decision

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs, as stated in article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (former 87.2).

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Rule 19(1) (2) (3) and Rule 20(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 64(1) of the Regulation No 207/2009 and related case-law;

               —

               Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of the Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the judicial year 1997/1998

text:
25.7.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/23
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,               Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
    comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of                      Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
    27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
    rules concerning copyright and rights related to                down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
    copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable        1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
    retransmission (1) and/or by failing to inform the              necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
    Commission thereof;                                             conclusions of the Commission and/or informing the
                                                                    Commission thereof.
    and
b) order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.               (1) OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                former officials, retired officials of the Commission of the
                   judicial year 1997/1998                          European Communities, residing in Germany, represented
                        (98/C 234/44)                               by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                                                                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
At its Plenary Conference held on 1 July 1998 the Court
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
of First Instance took formal note of the fact that, owing
                                                                    Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by Council of the European
to the judicial vacation, the oath-taking ceremony before
                                                                    Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, Antonio Lucidi and
the Court of Justice for new members of the Court of First
                                                                    Diego Canga Fano and, subsequently, Mr Lucidi and Mr
Instance could not take place until after the judicial
                                                                    Canga Fano alone), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
vacation and that consequently, in accordance with the
                                                                    Sabine Maass, Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and
third paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the
                                                                    Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
Court of Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                    Johannes van den Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for
EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, and the third
                                                                    annulment of the applicants' pension statements for
paragraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Statute of the Court
                                                                    December 1994, inasmuch as those statements are drawn
of Justice, the decisions of 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271 of
                                                                    up on the basis of Council Regulation (ECSC, EC,
6.9.1997) and 10 March 1998 (OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998)
                                                                    Euratom) No 3161/94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting,
on the designation of the Presidents of Chambers, the
                                                                    with effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and
composition of the Chambers and the assignment of cases
                                                                    pensions of officials (OJ L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and,
to them would continue to apply and that the President of
                                                                    second, for reinstatement of the applicants' pension rights
the Court, Mr Bo Vesterdorf, would continue to exercise
                                                                    in full, weighted, with effect from 3 October 1990, at the
the presidency of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                    rate fixed by reference to the cost of living in Berlin, and
                                                                    for default interest at the annual rate of 10 % Ð the
                                                                    Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B.
                                                                    Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
                                                                    Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June
                                                                    1998, in which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 June 1998
in Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 Others and Franz Becker and 6 Others v Commission                1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
              of the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð                 2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
             Act adversely affecting an official)
                        (98/C 234/45)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
               (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 other former officials and Franz Becker and 6 other


title: Case T-361/14: Action brought on 23 July 2014  — HB and Others v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/44

         Action brought on 23 July 2014 — HB and Others v Commission
   (Case T-361/14)
   2014/C 409/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: HB and Others (Linz, Austria) Hans Joachim Richter (Bremen, Germany); Carmen Arsene (Pitesti, Romania); Robert Coates Smith (Glatton, United Kingdom); Magdalena Anna Kuropatwinska (Warsaw, Poland); Nathalie Louise Klinge (Zuidbroek, Netherlands); and Christos Yiapanis (Paphos, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Kolar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision of 26 March 2014 which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants claim, in essence, that by the decision which rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ethics for Animals and Kids’, the Commission had failed to observe the limits of its competence and infringed its duty to protect, the general prohibition of arbitrariness and Articles 11 and 13 TFEU.


title: Case C-125/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission litiges voyages by order of that court of 4 December 2003 in the case of Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier against Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission litiges voyages by order of that court of 4 December 2003 in the case of Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier against Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA
   (Case C-125/04)
   (2004/C 156/05)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commission litiges voyages (Belgium), of 4 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Guy Denuit and Betty Cordenier against Transorient – Mosaïque Voyages and Culture SA on the following question:

               1.

               Where a clause in a contract between a consumer and a [travel] organiser and/or retailer provides only for the possibility of an upward price revision and states precisely how the calculations is to be made, solely in order to take account of variations set down in an exhaustive list by Article 4(4) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must that article be interpreted as implicitly requiring downward price revision according to the same method of calculation?

               2.

               Where a clause in a contract between a consumer and an organiser and/or retailer provides for the possibility of both upward and downward price revision without stating precisely how the calculation is to be made, and solely in order to take account of variations set down in an exhaustive list by Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must that article be interpreted as invalidating the entire clause or as limiting that invalidity to upward price revision?

               3.

               Where a clause in a contract between a consumer and an organiser and/or retailer gives only the organiser and/or retailer the possibility of revising prices upwards or downwards states precisely how the calculation is to be made, solely to take account of variations set down in an exhaustive list down by Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must that article be interpreted as rendering the whole clause void, or is its invalidity limited to upward price revision?

               4.

               Where a clause in the contract between a consumer and an organiser and/or retailer gives, both the travel organiser and/or retailer and the consumer the possibility of benefiting from upward and downward price revision, and states precisely how the calculation is to be made, solely to take account of the variations set down in an exhaustive list by Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 90/314/EEC, must that article be interpreted as requiring the travel organiser and/or retailer revise the price downwards if the consumer has not asked it to do so?


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS

text:
No C 31 / 10        EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                           31 . 1 . 97
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                                            NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                       (97/C 31 /06 )
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities has advertised in the Official Journal of the
             European Communities No C31A of 31 January 1997 the following open competitions :
             Finnish edition
             CJ/LA/ 21    (lawyer-linguists of Finnish mother-tongue)
             Swedish edition
             CJ/ LA/22 (lawyer-linguists of Swedish mother-tongue)
             To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of
             Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
             Closing date for application : 3 March 1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-75/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Edmund Thelen v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security — Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Applicability of a convention between Member States on unemployment insurance)

text:
27.1.2001                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 28/5
1.    It does not require that a jurisdiction clause be formulated in          Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
      such a way that the competent court can be determined on its             schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
      wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective      to members of their families moving within the Community,
      factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose          as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
      a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes              No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) and
      which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those                 amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July
      factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court          1989 (OJ 1989 L 224, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where              composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
      appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of            V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
      the case.                                                                F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in
2.    It applies only if, first, at least one of the parties to the original   which it has ruled:
      contract is domiciled in a Contracting State and, secondly, the
      parties agree to submit any disputes before a court or the courts        Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
      of a Contracting State.                                                  of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                               employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
3.    A jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper             families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
      which appears in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third         Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and
      party bearer of the bill of lading if he succeeded to the rights         amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2332/89 of 18 July
      and obligations of the shipper under the applicable national             1989, do not preclude application of provisions of an inter-State
      law when he acquired the bill of lading. If he did not, it must          convention on unemployment insurance which are more advantageous
      be ascertained whether he accepted that clause having regard to          for the insured, provided that the latter exercised his right to freedom
      the requirements laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17          of movement before the date of entry into force of that regulation,
      of the Convention, as amended.                                           even if, as a result of the reference period prescribed by the national
                                                                               legislation applicable to determination of the insured’s entitlement, it
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                    is not possible for him to claim a right to benefits based entirely on
                                                                               the period prior to that date.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 9 November 2000
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-75/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundessozialgericht): Edmund Thelen v Bundesanstalt                                                of 9 November 2000
                               für Arbeit (1)
                                                                               in Case C-126/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
(Social security — Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC)                        from the Pretore di Torino): Roberto Vitari v European
No 1408/71 — Applicability of a convention between                                                    Training Foundation (1)
          Member States on unemployment insurance)
                                                                               (Local staff — Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment
                             (2001/C 28/08)                                    of other Servants — Fixed-term contract of employment —
                                                                               Conversion into contract for an indefinite period — Whether
                                                                                or not national legislation applicable)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/09)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-75/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundessozialge-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
richt (Federal Social Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling                                    in the European Court Reports)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Edmund
Thelen and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit — on the interpretation                    In Case C-126/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Torino


title: Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the composition of the Chambers

text:
24.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 327/17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/28)
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the          By order of 23 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 September          removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (reference
1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                 for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht,
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the          Düsseldorf): Stadt Dormagen v Bezirksregierung
conclusions of the Commission.                                     Düsseldorf.
(1) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (1)
                         (98/C 327/27)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-357/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/29)
By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (reference for          By order of 24 August 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Padova): Tommaso Nalon v Ente Poste Italiane.                      removal from the register of Case C-357/97: Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance            Ð Mr Cooke,
                         (98/C 327/30)
                                                                       Ð Mr Jaeger.
At their meeting on 17 September 1998 the Judges of the
Court of First Instance elected, pursuant to Article 7 of
the Rules of Procedure, Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President           B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
of the Court of First Instance for the period from                     to the Chambers as follows:
17 September 1998 to 31 August 2001.
                                                                       to the First Chamber:
                                                                       Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,
Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the                      Judges;
                composition of the Chambers
                         (98/C 327/31)
                                                                       to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of                  Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Pirrung,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in              Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
respect of the period between 21 September 1998 and
30 September 1999:
                                                                       to the Second Chamber:
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
    Ð Mr Potocki,
                                                                       Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy and
    Ð Mr Moura Ramos,                                                  Mr Meij, Judges;
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/18             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
    to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:                  1. (a) Actions concerning the implementation of the
                                                                            rules on State aid or the rules on trade protection
                                                                            measures shall be assigned, with effect from the
    Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts, Mr                      lodging of the application and without prejudice
    Bellamy, Mr Azizi and Mr Meij, Judges;                                  to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and
                                                                            51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers with
    to the Third Chamber:                                                   an extended composition of five Judges.
    Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts and                 (b) All other cases shall be assigned, with effect from
    Mr Azizi, Judges;                                                       the lodging of the application and without
                                                                            prejudice to any subsequent application of
                                                                            Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to
    to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                            Chambers of three Judges.
    Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts, Ms
    Tiili, Mr Azizi and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;                      2. The cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall
                                                                      be allocated between the Chambers as follows:
    to the Fourth Chamber:
                                                                      (a) Cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be
    Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili                         assigned in turn, according to the order in which
    and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;                                                they are registered at the Court Registry, to the
                                                                            First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers,
                                                                            Extended Composition;
    to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                      (b) Cases concerning intellectual property, as referred
    Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Mr García-
                                                                            to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
    Valdecasas, Ms Tiili, Ms Lindh and Mr Mengozzi,
                                                                            the Court of First Instance, shall be assigned,
    Judges;
                                                                            according to the order in which they are
                                                                            registered at the Court Registry, to the Second
    to the Fifth Chamber:                                                   and Fourth Chambers;
    Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr García-                       (c)   The other cases referred to in paragraph 1(b)
    Valdecasas and Ms Lindh, Judges;                                        shall be assigned to the First, Second, Third,
                                                                            Fourth and Fifth Chambers. Such assignment is to
    to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:                             be effected on the basis of three separate rotas,
                                                                            reflecting the order in which the cases are
                                                                            registered at the Court Registry:
    Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr García-
    Valdecasas, Ms Lindh, Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,                        Ð for the cases referred to in Article 179 of the
    Judges.                                                                     EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC
                                                                                Treaty,
Cases pending before the present Chambers have been
reallocated with effect from 21 September 1998 to the                       Ð for the cases concerning the implementation
Chamber, composed of the same number of Judges, of                              of the rules on competition applicable to
which the Judge Rapporteur in each particular case is a                         undertakings,
member.
                                                                            Ð for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).
However, for cases in which the written procedure was
completed, and a hearing in the oral procedure was held
or fixed before 21 September 1998, the Chamber shall              For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent
continue to sit with the same composition as before for           of paragraph 2(c), the assignment of cases concerning
the oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment             intellectual property to the Second and Fourth Chambers
                                                                  on the basis of the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall
                                                                  be compensated for by the assignment of cases to the
Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers                      First, Third and Fifth Chambers on a pro rata basis.
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance established the following criteria for the               For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs
assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period ending         2(a) and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber,
30 September 1999, pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of         Extended Composition, presided over by the President of
Procedure:                                                        the Court of First Instance, shall not be included in those
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 327/19
lists every third time the end of a rota is reached in respect      Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B.
of cases covered by the first indent of paragraph 2(c), or          Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and
every sixth time the end of the rota is reached in respect          J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
of cases covered by paragraph 2(a) and the second and               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
third indents of paragraph 2(c).                                    1998, in which it:
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate           1. Declares that the case need not proceed to judgment;
from that order on the ground that cases are related or
with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.
                                                                    2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Plenary session
                                                                    (1) OJ C 119, 13.5.1995.
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that where, following the designation of an
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota
established in advance in accordance with which the                                      of 16 September 1998
President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will
not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in               in Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according            Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European
to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of                                Communities (1)
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated
                                                                    (Competition Ð Remail Ð Action for annulment Ð
is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the Judge
                                                                       Partial rejection of a complaint Ð Community interest)
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
                                                                                (98/C 327/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           In Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers
                    of 16 September 1998                            Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in Geneva
                                                                    (Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de Rivery, of
in Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers                     the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and
Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European                      Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       Communities (1)                              the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
(Competition Ð Action for a declaration of failure to act           against Commission of the European Communities
       Ð No need for the case to proceed to judgment)               (Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez-Díaz and
                                                                    Rosemary Caudwell, subsequently Rosemary Caudwell,
                        (98/C 327/32)                               Fabiola Mascardi and Nicholas Forwood), supported by
                                                                    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                    (Agents: Stephanie Ridley, and, during the oral procedure,
                (Language of the case: English)                     also Nicholas Green), La Poste, represented by HerveÂ
                                                                    Lehman and Sylvain Rieuneau, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, and The Post Office,
Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in Geneva                represented by Ulick Bourke, Solicitor of the Supreme
(Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de Rivery, of            Court of England and Wales, and, during the oral
the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and             procedure, also by Stuart Isaacs and Sarah Moore,
Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                  the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe Ð
against Commission of the European Communities                      application for the annulment of the Commission decision
(Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez-Díaz and             of 17 February 1995 definitively rejecting that part of the
Rosemary Caudwell, and subsequently Rosemary                        complaint filed by the applicant on 13 July 1988
Caudwell and Fabiola Mascardi) Ð application for a                  denouncing a price-fixing agreement concluded in October
declaration that, in failing to define its position on the          1987 by a number of public postal operators Ð the Court
applicant's complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the            of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
EC Treaty (IV/32.791 Ð Remail), the Commission has                  composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
failed to act Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                  Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio


C 247/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26.8.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-417/98 P (1)
                         (2000/C 247/43)                                                     (2000/C 247/47)
By order of 4 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-405/99: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-417/98 P: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                    Communities v Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH Kai Interporc Im- und Export GmbH.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-426/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-156/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/48)
By order of 6 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-426/99 (reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Düsseldorf): Connaught            the register of Case C-156/99: Commission of the European
Laboratories Inc. v SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and               Communities v French Republic.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing SA.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-355/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-168/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/45)                                                     (2000/C 247/49)
By order of 7 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 11 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
the register of Case C-355/99: Commission of the European            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-168/99:
Communities v Ireland.                                               Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-412/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/46)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-229/99 (1)
By order of 18 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 247/50)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-412/99: Commission of the European            By order of 15 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-229/99:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                            Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-320/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela) José Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) (Article 51 of the EC Treaty - Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Unemployment benefit for persons over 25 years of age)

text:
C 121/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            1.5.1999
preliminary ruling in the administrative proceedings brought               1. Subject to the duty of the national court to interpret national law
before that court by AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry                     as far as possible in conformity with Community law, it is not
on the interpreation of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of                        contrary to the latter for a transitional rule of national law to
13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package                   provide that an appeal against a decision given before the
tours (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59) — the Court (Fifth                          date on which the rules transposing First Council Directive
Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                       89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward                     the Member States relating to trade marks into national law
and L. Sevón, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H.A. Rühl,                 were belatedly brought into force is to be decided in accordance
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment               with the rules applicable before that date, even where judgment
on 11 February 1999 in which it has ruled:                                     is given after that date.
Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,            2. The use of a trade mark, without the proprietor’s authorisation,
package holidays and package tours does not apply to travel:                   for the purpose of informing the public that another undertaking
                                                                               carries out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that
— Comprising student exchanges of about six months’ or a year’s                mark or that it has specialised or is a specialist in such goods
    duration;                                                                  constitutes, in circumstances such as those described in the
                                                                               judgment making the reference, use of the mark within the
— The purpose of which is attendance by the student at an                      meaning of Article 5(1) (a) of First Directive 89/104/EEC.
    educational establishment in the host country in order to
    familiarise himself with its people and culture; and                   3. Articles 5 to 7 of First Directive 89/104/EEC do not entitle the
                                                                               proprietor of a trade mark to prohibit a third party from using
— During which the student stays with a host family as if he were              the mark for the purpose of informing the public that he carries
    a member thereof free of charge.                                           out the repair and maintenance of goods covered by that trade
                                                                               mark and put on the market under that mark by the proprietor
                                                                               or with his consent, or that he has specialised or is a specialist in
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                                       the sale or the repair and maintenance of such goods, unless the
                                                                               mark is used in a way that may create the impression that there
                                                                               is a commercial connection between the other undertaking and
                                                                               the trade mark proprietor, and in particular that the resseller’s
                                                                               business is affiliated to the trade mark proprietor’s distribution
                                                                               network or that there is a special relationship between the two
                                                                               undertakings.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                       of 23 February 1999
in Case C-63/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bayerische Moto-
renwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald
                          Karel Deenik (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Trade-marks directive — Unauthorised use of the BMW
     trade mark in advertisements for a garage business)                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          (1999/C 121/03)                                                          of 25 February 1999
                                                                           in Case C-320/95: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela)
                                                                           José Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
                                                                           (INEM) and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                    (INSS) (1)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Article 51 of the EC Treaty — Article 67 of Regulation
In case C-63/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit for persons
the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-                                          over 52 years of age)
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Bayerische Motorenwerke AG                                                  (1999/C 121/04)
(BMW) and BMW Nederland BV and Ronald Karel Deenik —
on the interpretation of Articles 5 to 7 of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L40,
11.2.1989, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and R. Schint-                                    in the European Court Reports)
gen, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               In case C-320/95: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
23 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                                   the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de lo Social (Social Court),


title: Case F-84/10: Action brought on 23 September 2010 — Chatzidoukakis v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/39

         Action brought on 23 September 2010 — Chatzidoukakis v Commission
   (Case F-84/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/76
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Efstratios Chatzidoukakis (Schrassig, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reduce the education allowance granted to the applicant on the ground that his son receives financial support from a Member State in the form of a bursary and a loan.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, first, the decision to reduce the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant as specified in the pay slip of February 2010, and the pay slip in question to the extent that it partially reduces the ‘education allowance’: second, the Commission decision of 26 February 2010 relating to the reduction of the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant and to the deduction of a sum of EUR 375 from that allowance, a deduction which appears on the pay slip of March 2010; third, the pay slip of March 2010, reducing the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant and containing a backdated reduction of EUR 375; fourth, the pay slips for the months of April to August 2010, to the extent that they contain a partial reduction of the ‘education allowance’; fifth, the Commission decision of 9 July 2010, expressly rejecting the complaint;

               —

               Refund, with interest, to the applicant the amounts deducted from his entitlements;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-506/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Rico Graf and Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut, Landwirtschaftsamt

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2010 — Rico Graf and Rudolf Engel v Landratsamt Waldshut, Landwirtschaftsamt
   (Case C-506/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Waldshut-Tiengen — Landwirtschaftsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rico Graf and Rudolf Engel

      Defendant: Landratsamt Waldshut — Landwirtschaftsamt

      Question referred

   Is Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Law of the German Land of Baden-Württemberg on Implementation of the Law on property transactions and of the Law on agricultural tenancy transactions (Ausführungsgesetz zum Grundstücksverkehrsgesetz und zum Landpachtverkehrsgesetz), as amended on 21 February 2006 (Gesetzblatt, p. 85), compatible with the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons ? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


title: Case F-24/11: Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Nicolas Katrakasas v Commission

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/33

         Action brought on 7 March 2011 — Nicolas Katrakasas v Commission
   (Case F-24/11)
   2011/C 152/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nicolas Katrakasas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board of 11 May 2010 upholding, following reconsideration, its decision of 9 March 2010 not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8- Administrators specialised in anti-fraud;

               —

               to the necessary extent, annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               annul the reserve list in so far as it does not include the applicant’s name, and all other decisions taken on the basis of that list;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.