title: Case T-183/06: Action brought on 11 July 2006 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/36

         Action brought on 11 July 2006 — Portuguese Republic v Commission
   (Case T-183/06)
   (2006/C 212/64)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: L.Fernandes, Agent, C.Botelho Moniz, advogado, and E.Maia Cadete, advogado)

      Defendant: Commission
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of 28 April 2006 of the Commission of the European Communities entitled ‘Commission Decision 28/IV/2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)’ in so far as it applies in the case of Portugal a financial correction of 100 % in the flax sector, amounting to EUR 3 135 348,71;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The subject-matter of the action is the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 28 April 2006 entitled ‘Commission Decision 28/IV/2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)’ in so far as it applies in the case of Portugal a financial correction of 100 % in the flax sector, amounting to EUR 3 135 348,71, in the context of the scheme introduced by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp (1).

      (1)  OJ L 121, 29.4.1989, p.4


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 June 1995 in Case C-414/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven en Waterstaat (Structural improvements in inland waterway transport - Scrapping premiums - Available financial resources - Scrapping Fund - Separate accounts - Budget)

text:
  2 . 9. 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 229/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  1 . Article 5 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89
                       ( Fifth Chamber)                                   of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland
                                                                          waterway transport is not to be interpreted as meaning
                        of 1 June 1995                                    that a valid application for a scrapping premium must be
in Case C-414/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling                      accepted if the aggregate financial resources available to
from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven en                     the Funds ofthe Member States concerned are sufficient.
                         Waterstaat (M                                    Nor is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that
 (Structural improvements in inland waterway transport —                  an application for a scrapping premium for a pusher
 Scrapping premiums — Available financial resources —                     craft must be accepted ifthe financial resources available
       Scrapping Fund — Separate accounts — Budget)                       in the common account for dry*cargo vessels and pusher
                                                                          craft, referred to in Article 3 (3) of the abovementioned
                         ( 95/C 229/01                                    Regulation, are sufficient as a whole;
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                        2 . Article 1 (2) and Article 8 of Commission Regulation
                                                                          (EEC) No 1102/89 of 27 April 1989 laying down
                                                                          certain measures for implementing Council Regulation
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              (EEC) No 1101 /89 on structural improvements in
          published in the European Court Reports)                        inland waterway transport must be interpreted as
                                                                          meaning that a valid application for a scrapping
In Case C-4 14/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177              premium for a pusher craft must be refused when the
of the EC Treaty by the College van Beroep voor het                       financial resources required to cover it exceed the
Bedrijfsleven, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the               budget ofECU 5 million provided for in Article 1 (2) for
proceedings pending before that court between F. D.                       pusher craft, notwithstanding the fact that the other
Teirlinck and Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat on the                   budgets mentioned in that provision for dry-cargo
interpretation of Article 5 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )           vessels and/or for tanker vessels are not used up after all
No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in                 the applications for scrapping premiums relating to
inland waterway transport (2 ), on the interpretation and                 those two types of vessel have been accepted;
validity of Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 8 of Commission Regulation
( EEC ) No 1102/89 of 27 April 1989 laying down certain              3 . examination of the points raised has disclosed no factor
measures for implementing Council Regulation ( EEC )                      of such a nature as to affect the validity of the
No 1101/89 ( 3 ) on the interpretation of Article 6 (4 ) of the           Commission Regulation;
latter Regulation, and on the validity of Letter No 56765 of
29 June 1990 addressed by the Commission to the Kingdom              4 . examination of the points raised has revealed no factor
of the Netherlands determining the applications for                       of such a nature as to affect the validity of the decision
scrapping premiums which may be accepted by the                           contained in Letter No 56765 addressed by the
Funds .                                                                   Commission      to   the Netherlands      Government on
                                                                          29 June 1990;
The Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann
( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C.              5 . Article 6 (4) of the Commission Regulation is to be
Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet,                interpreted as meaning that an application for a
Judges, Advocate-General: F. C. Jacobs, Registrar: H. A.                  scrapping premium amounting to more than 70 % ofthe
Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 1 June                 rates laid down for each type or category of vessel is not
1995 whose operative part is as follows :                                 to be deemed to be accepted when the Fund authorities
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
       did not inform the applicant in writing, before                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       1 September 1 990, of the result of his application.                                       of 6 June 1995
                                                                         in Case C-434/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(') OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1993 .                                       the Raad van State, Netherlands ): Ahmet Bozkurt v.
( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Justitie ( 1 )
                                                                         (Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey —
                                                                         Decision of the Association Council — Freedom of
                                                                         movement for workers — International lorry-driver —
                                                                             Permanent incapacity for work — Right to remain)
                                                                                95/C 229/03
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                            of 1 June 1995
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive text will be published
         in Case C-123/94 : Commission of the European                                  in the European Court Reports)
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (^
 (Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment —                    In Case C-434/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
    Recruitment of foreigners by private language schools)
                                                                         of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State ( Council of State,
                             ( 95/C 229/02 )                             Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         pending before that court between Ahmet Bozkurt and the
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        Staatssecretaris van Justitie on the interpretation of Article 2
                                                                         of Decision No 2/76 of 20 December 1976 and Article 6 of
                                                                         Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         Council established by the agreement establishing an
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         Association between the European Economic Community
                                                                         and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara and
 In Case C-123/94 : Commission of the European                           approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
 Communities ( Agent: Maria Patakia ) v. Hellenic Republic                64/732/EEC ( 2 ).
 (Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Evi Skandalou ) —
 application for a declaration that, by maintaining in force
 the provisions of Article 70 of Decree Law No 2545/1940                 The Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 and Decision No 46508 of 10/ 17 May 1976 of the Minister                 F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and
                                                                          C. Gulmann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, C. N.
 for National Education and Religious Affairs ( as
                                                                          Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
 subsequently amended ), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
 fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 3 ( 1 ) of        Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B.
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968                 Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
 on       freedom    of movement         for workers    within  the       Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 1995 in which it
                                                                          ruled :
 Community ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
 C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet               1.  in order to ascertain whether a Turkish worker
 and L. Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                         employed as an international lorry-driver belongs to the
 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1 995 , in               legitimate labour force of a Member State, for the
 which it :                                                                   purposes of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
                                                                              19 September 1980 of the Association Council
  1 . declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of                established by the agreement establishing and
        Article 70 of Decree Law No 2545/1940 and Decision                    Association between the European Economic
        No 46508 of 10/17 May 1976 of the Minister for                        Community and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963
        National Education and Religious Affairs (as                          in Ankara and approved on behalfof the Community by
        subsequently amended), the Hellenic Republic has failed               Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, it
        to fulfil its obligations under Community law, more                   is for the national court to determine whether the
        specifically Article 48 (2) of the EC Treaty and Article 3            applicant's employment relationship retained a
        (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of                        sufficiently close link with the territory of the Member
        15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                    State, and, in so doing, to take account, in particular, of
        within the Community;                                                 the place where he was hired, the territory on which the
                                                                              paid employment is based and the applicable national
                                                                              legislation in the field ofemployment and social security
  2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          law;
  (•) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                       2 . the existence of legal employment in a Member State
  (2 ) OJ No L 257, 19 . 10 . 1968 , p . 2 .                                   within the meaning ofArticle 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80,
                                                                               cited above, can be established in the case of a Turkish
                                                                               worker who was not required by the national legislation


title: Case T-389/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2009 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)
   (Case T-389/08) (1)

   2009/C 193/53

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-407/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — MIP Metro v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Metromeet)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/31

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — MIP Metro v OHIM — CBT Comunicación Multimedia (Metromeet)
   (Case T-407/08)
   (2008/C 327/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL (Getxo, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2008 in Case R 387/2007-1 as it is incompatible with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and refuse application No 37 405 29 for the Community trade mark ‘metromeet’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the opposition and appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: CBT Comunicación Multimedia, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Metromeet’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41 — Application No 3 740 529

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP Metro

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark ‘METRO’ and the word mark ‘meeting metro’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-79/01: Action brought on 5 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 186/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
Action brought on 5 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH                                                   — Registration of the mark in
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                      question would accord with
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                            the other aspects of the
                                                                                decision-making practice fol-
                                                                                lowed by the Boards of
                         (Case T-79/01)                                                                   Appeal.
                                                                                — Infringement,        alternatively
                        (2001/C 186/15)                                                                   misinterpretation,            of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
                                                                                lation No 40/94.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
5 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
      First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in          Action brought on 9 April 2001 by Barbara Diehl-Leistner
      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the                against the Commission of the European Communities
      appeal proceedings registered under number
      R 124/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
      cation No 761 270;                                                                          (Case T-80/01)
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.                                               (2001/C 186/16)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                           (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Applicant for the Com-        the applicant                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
munity trade mark:                                                      European Communities on 9 April 2001 by Barbara Diehl-
                                                                        Leistner, Luxembourg, represented by Lex Thielen, Lawyer,
The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘Kit Pro’                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
cerned:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 12
cerned:                       (parts for repairing drum brakes          —     annul the decision notified to the applicant by letter of
                              in land vehicles)                               the selection board for Competition COM/A/12/98, 02
                                                                              of 17 April 2000 that she is not included on the list of
Decision        contested     refusal of the application for regis-           successful candidates in the open competition and the
before the Board of           tration of the mark                             decision of 17 January 2001 rejecting her complaint of
Appeal:                                                                       4 July 2000;
Grounds of claim:             — The mark is not descriptive             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                  within the meaning of
                                  Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                  (EC) No 40/94 (1).                    Pleas in law and main arguments
                              — There is no need to keep the
                                  mark free.
                                                                        The applicant took part in Open Competition COM/A/12/98,
                              — The mark possesses the mini-            02 and was informed that she was not placed on the list of
                                  mum level of distinctiveness          successful candidates in the competition because she did not
                                  necessary for trade-mark pro-         achieve the minimum mark in the oral test. Her complaint
                                  tection.                              against that decision was rejected by the defendant.


title: Case C-98/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation No 1383/2003 — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Article 2 — Scope of the Regulation — Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State — Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State — Lawfulness of seizure — Conditions — Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4 — Distribution to the public — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Use in the course of trade)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA,
   (Case C-98/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation No 1383/2003 - Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market - Article 2 - Scope of the Regulation - Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State - Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State - Lawfulness of seizure - Conditions - Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4 - Distribution to the public - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Use in the course of trade)
   2014/C 93/28
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martin Blomqvist

      Defendants: Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA,

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), Article 5(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25), Article 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 2(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Individual residing in a Member State who bought a counterfeit watch for private use from the website of a seller from a non-member country — Seizure of that watch sent by post to the buyer, and suspension of customs clearance of the watch by the authorities of that Member State.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an intellectual property right over goods sold to a person residing in the territory of a Member State through an online sales website in a non-member country enjoys the protection afforded to that holder by that regulation at the time when those goods enter the territory of that Member State merely by virtue of the acquisition of those goods. It is not necessary, in addition, for the goods at issue to have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or advertising targeting consumers of that State.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013


title: Case C-67/05: Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/22

         Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-67/05)
   (2005/C 82/44)
   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 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Sara Pardo Quintillian, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (1) of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, or to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2000/60/EC expired on 22 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case T-284/04: Action brought on 12 July 2004 by UPS Europe N.V./S.A. and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co OHG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/25

         Action brought on 12 July 2004 by UPS Europe N.V./S.A. and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co OHG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-284/04)
   (2004/C 251/45)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 July 2004 by UPS Europe N.V./S.A., Brussels, Belguim and UPS Deutschland Inc. & C. OHG, represented by Mr T.R. Ottervanger and Ms A.S. Bijleveld, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the implied Commission decision to refuse their confirmatory request of 13 April 2004 for access to certain documents;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By a decision dated 20 March 2001 (1) the Commission decided that Deutsche Post AG had infringed Article 82 of the EC Treaty through its practices in the mail-order parcel sector. It further required Deutsche Post to create a separate commercial parcel services subsidiary as well as a system of transparent and market-based pricing between Deutsche Post AG and that subsidiary. Deutsche Post was required to inform the Commission annually on the fulfilment of these undertakings. Deutsche Post did so by letter of 22 May 2003. The applicants, who are also active in the same business sector, requested and received a non-confidential version of that letter on 22 September 2003. On 20 October 2003 the applicants requested the Commission to grant them access to the average internal transfer prices charged by Deutsche Post to its subsidiary, information which had been blanked out in the non-confidential version of the letter of 22 May 2003. They also requested access to a report and a calculation which, according to the same letter, had been submitted to the Commission on 16 November 2001. The request was made on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001 (2) Official Journal L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43-48. The applicants repeated their request on 18 November 2003 and made a confirmatory application on 13 April 2004. By letter of 21 April 2004 the Commission acknowledged receipt of the confirmatory application and stated that it was consulting Deutsche Post on the exact scope of the commercially sensitive information in the documents requested. Not having received any further answer, the applicants consider that there is an implied Commission decision to refuse their application for access, and request the Court to annul it.
   In support of their application the applicants invoke a breach of Regulation 1049/2001, contending that none of the exceptions of Article 4 apply and that therefore access should have been granted as requested. They also invoke a breach by the Commission of the duty, under Article 253 EC, to state reasons for its decision. The applicants submit that the Commission is in breach of Regulation 1049/2001 also on the grounds that it neither replied within the prescribed time limit nor stated any reasons for refusing to grant access. Finally, they argue that the Commission has violated its own Rules of Procedure as amended by the Commission's decision of 5 December 2001 (3). According to the applicants, the Commission should have finalised its consultation of Deutsche Post and have taken a decision within the 15 day working period.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 20 March 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/35.141 — Deutsche Post AG) (notified under document number C(2001) 728), OJ L 125 5/5/2001 p. 27.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

      (3)  OJ L 345, 29/12/2001 p. 94.


title: Case C-97/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of 25 January 2005 in the proceedings between Mohamed Gattoussi and the Municipality of Rüsselsheim

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of 25 January 2005 in the proceedings between Mohamed Gattoussi and the Municipality of Rüsselsheim
   (Case C-97/05)
   (2005/C 106/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Darmstadt Administrative Court) (Germany) of 25 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 23 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Mohamed Gattoussi and the Municipality of Rüsselsheim on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) have any effect on entitlement to remain?
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

               2.

               Can it be inferred from the prohibition of discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia that the position in respect of entitlement to remain precludes any time limitation on entitlement to remain where a Tunisian citizen holds a work permit of indefinite duration, is actually in employment and at the time of the decision under the law concerning aliens has temporary entitlement to remain?
               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

               3.

               For the purposes of determining the position in respect of entitlement to remain in the light of the prohibition on discrimination in Article 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia, can account be taken of the position subsequent to the issue of a decision under the law on aliens setting a time-limit on entitlement to remain?
               If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:

               4.

               Is it necessary to follow the principles developed as regards Article 39(3) EC when applying the proviso in respect of grounds relating to the protection of a legitimate national interest?


title: Case T-9/05: Action brought on 12 January 2005 by Hoya Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/24

         Action brought on 12 January 2005 by Hoya Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-9/05)
   (2005/C 106/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 January 2005 by Hoya Corporation, established in Tokyo, (Japan) represented by A. Nordemann, lawyer.
   Indo Internacional S.A.established in Barcelona (Spain) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 November 2004 in case R 433/2004-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘AMPLITUDE’ for products in class 9 (eyeglasses etc.), Community trade mark application No. 1 723 931

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Indo Internacional S.A.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National figurative mark ‘AMPLY’ for products in class 9 (eyeglasses etc.)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls contested decision; registration refused

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8 paragraph 1(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1)

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


title: Case C-675/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Regalp SA

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR) v Regalp SA
   (Case C-675/11)
   2012/C 89/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer), successor in law to the Office national interprofessionnel des fruits, des légumes, des vins et de l’horticulture (VINIFLHOR)

      Defendant: Regalp SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               How is the option, granted by Article 2(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF, (1) to extend the scrutiny period ‘for periods … preceding or following the 12-month period’ which it defines, to be implemented by a Member State, having regard to, first, the need to protect the Communities’ financial interests, and second, the principle of legal certainty and the necessity to not give the scrutiny authorities indefinite power?

               2.

               In particular:

                           —

                           Must the period scrutinised, in all instances — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the person scrutinised may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — end during the twelve month period which precedes the ‘scrutiny’ period during which the scrutiny operations are carried out?

                           —

                           In the event of a positive reply to the preceding question, how must the option, expressly provided for by the regulation, to extend the period of scrutiny for periods ‘following the 12-month period’ be understood?

                           —

                           In the event of a negative reply to the first question, must the scrutiny period nevertheless — if the scrutiny is not to be marred by an irregularity which the scrutinised person may rely on against the decision giving due effect to the results of the scrutiny — include a twelve month period which ends during the scrutiny period preceding that during which the scrutiny was carried out, or, on the contrary, may the scrutiny cover only a period which ends before the beginning of the preceding scrutiny period?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4045/89 of 21 December 1989 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund and repealing Directive 77/435/EEC (OJ 1989 L 388, p. 18).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 July 2003 in Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the European Communities (Interim measures — Official — Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
C 226/18                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
Application for annulment of decision C(2003) 564 final of                     lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities —
17 February 2003 concerning the system of State aid imple-                     application for suspension of enforcement of the Commission
mented by Belgium in favour of coordination centres estab-                     Decision of 18 June 2003 terminating the applicant's assign-
lished in Belgium, the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,                 ment to a post in the delegation of that institution in Nairobi
Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,                  (Kenya) with effect from 15 July 2003, the President of the
J. Azizi, M. Jaeger, H. Legal and E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges;                  Court of First Instance made an order of 3 July 2003, the
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 16 May 2003, the                      operative part of which is as follows:
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case T-140/03        1.   Enforcement of the Commission Decision of 18 June 2003 termi-
     Forum 187 ASBL v Commission in favour of the Court of Justice                  nating the applicant's assignment to a post in the delegation of
     in order to enable the latter to rule on the application for                   that institution in Nairobi (Kenya) is suspended with effect from
     annulment.                                                                     15 July 2003 until the end of the present interim proceedings.
2.   The costs are reserved.
                                                                               2.   Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-78/03 (1)
                           of 3 July 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 226/39)
in Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the European
                            Communities                                                            (Language of the Case: French)
(Interim measures — Official — Article 105(2) of the Rules                     By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                             of Procedure)                                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-78/03:
                          (2003/C 226/38)                                      Haladjian Frères v Commission of the European Communities.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-249/03 R Y, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by S. Papanikolaou,                          (1) OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case F-24/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Lafleur Tighe v Commission (Staff cases — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Former individual experts — Professional experience — Degrees — Certificate of equivalence — Admissibility — New and substantial fact)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Lafleur Tighe v Commission
   (Case F-24/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contract staff - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Former individual experts - Professional experience - Degrees - Certificate of equivalence - Admissibility - New and substantial fact)
   2009/C 102/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Virginie Lafleur Tighe (Makati, Phillipines) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority to classify the applicant in function group IV, grade 13, step 1 at the date of her recruitment as a member of contract staff inasmuch as the calculation of her professional experience did not take account of the period between the date on which she obtained her bachelor's degree and the date on which she obtained her master's degree and, second, retroactive reclassification of the applicant in grade 14

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007, p. 36.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 October 1996 in Case T-197/95: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Sven Åke Henrikson v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Sugar beet - Regulation (EC) No 1734/95 - Specific agricultural conversion rate - No conversion rate for Sweden - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
No C 354/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
and     Walter      Klosterfelde   and    Karsten     Metzlaff,      the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 August
Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in               1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8— 10
Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                     1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Communities ( Agents : initially Nicholas Khan and
Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz ),
                                                                     2.   The costs are reserved.
supported by Frima BV, established in The Hague
( Netherlands ), represented initially by Tom Ottervanger, of
the Rotterdam Bar, and Harold Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar,
and then by Tom Ottervanger only, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67
Rue Ermesinde, application for annulment of the decision
contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission stated that it had found no reason to propose                                   of 4 October 1996
' appropriate measures ' pursuant to Article 93 ( 1 ) of the EC
Treaty with regard to the Netherlands regional aid scheme            in Case T-197/95 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and
Subsidieregeling regionale investeringsprojecten 1991 —              Sven Ake Henrikson v. Commission of the European
the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber, Extended                                        Communities (')
Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.                (Common agricultural policy — Sugar beet — Regulation
Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges, J.         (EC) No 1 734/95 — Specific agricultural conversion rate —
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              No conversion rate for Sweden — Action for annulment —:
given a judgment on 22 October 1996 in which it :                                             Inadmissibility)
                                                                                96/C 354/53 )
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2 . orders Salt Union to pay the costs, including those
     incurred by Frima BV;                                           In Case T-197/95 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening,
                                                                     having its registered office in Malmö ( Sweden ), and Sven
3 . orders Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to bear its own          Ake Henrikson, residing in Lund ( Sweden), represented by
     costs .                                                         Otfried      Lieberknecht        and      Wolfgang      Kirchhoff,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Düsseldorf, and Michael Schütte ,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue
                                                                     Guillaume,      against    Commission         of   the  European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and James
                                                                     Macdonald Flett ) — application for the annulment, under
                                                                     Article 173 of the EC Treaty, of Commission Regulation
                                                                     ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995 fixing, for the 1994/95
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate
                                                                     applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the
                      of 28 August 1996                              production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case T-112/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché v. Commission of               No 165 , 15 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 ), in so far as that Regulation does
                  the European Communities                           not fix any rate applicable to Sweden — the Court of First
(Officials — Rejection of application for a post and                 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio ,
appointment of another candidate — Application for                   President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
interim measures — Application for suspension of                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 October 1996 , the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows :
        operation of a measure — Urgency — None)
                         ( 96/C 354/52 )
                                                                     1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
               (Language of the case: French)                        2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to
                                                                         intervene brought by the Kingdom of Sweden .
In Case T-l 12/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities , represented by              3 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall also
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service           bear, jointly and severally, those incurred by the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                  Commission . The Kingdom of Sweden shall bear the
Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European                            costs which it has incurred in bringing its application for
Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                      leave to intervene.
Currall ) — application for suspension of operation of the
decisions of the Commission of 22 May 1996 rejecting the
                                                                     (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
applicant's application for, and appointing another
candidate to, the post of Principal Legal Adviser, declared
vacant by vacancy notice COM/2Q/96 — the President of


title: Case T-223/05: Action brought on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/45

         Action brought on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-223/05)
   (2005/C 217/99)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl, established in Florence, represented by Wilma Viscardini, Simonetta Donà and Mariano Paolin, lawyers, for an order against the Commission to pay damages in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of the unlawful failure by the Commission to take the measures necessary within the meaning of Article 30 of Council Regulation No 404/93, as held by the Court in its judgment of 8 June 2000 in Case T-79/96, in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant seeks an order against the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by it, already pleaded in Case T-79/96 CAMAR v Commission. (1)

   It must be noted that in that case it was held by the Court that even though the defendant had acted unlawfully and therefore the action was admissible in so far as the declaration for failure to act was concerned, the action for compensation was inadmissible owing to the impossibility, at that time, of quantifying the extent of the future damage.
   The pleas and main arguments are, for the most part, the same as those relied on in the case cited above and in Case T-457/04 CAMAR v Commission. (2)

      (1)  Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2173.

      (2)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005, p. 28.


21.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 302/21
2.    If not, is the manner in which these provisions are                sation — United Civil Chambers) of 9 June 2000, which was
      interpreted and applied in practice by the Conseil Supé-           received at the Court Registry on 11 September 2000, for a
      rieur de l’Audiovisuel contrary to Article 59 of the EC            preliminary ruling in the case of Fonderie Officine Meecaniche
      Treaty (now Article 49 EC) insofar as they prevent or              Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinen-
      restrict (a) the advertising of alcoholic drinks at sporting       fabrik GmbH on the following question:
      events taking place in Member States other than France
      when the events are to be televised in France and (b) the
      broadcasting in France of sporting events taking place in          Does an action against a defendant for pre-contractual liability
      other Member States at which there is advertising of               fall within the scope of matters relating to delict or quasi-delict
      alcoholic beverages?                                               (Article 5(3)? If not, does it fall within the scope of matters
                                                                         relating to a contract (Article 5(1) (1)? If it does, what is ‘the
                                                                         obligation in question’? Otherwise, is the general criterion of
                                                                         ‘domicile of the defendant’ the only criterion applicable?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   (1) Article 5(1) and (3) of the Brussels Convention 1968 on Jurisdic-
                                                                             tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
                                                                             Matters (consolidated version) (OJ 1998 C 27, p. 1).
23 August 2000 in the appeal concerning Merkurbau-
Grundstücksverwertungs GmbH & Co KG, Manfred
Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salz-
                                burg
                         (Case C-319/00)
                         (2000/C 302/40)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-525/99 (1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                                          (2000/C 302/42)
tungssenat Salzburg of 23 August 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 28 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
the appeal concerning Merkurbau-Grundstücksverwertungs                   By order of 3 April 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
GmbH & Co KG, Manfred Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des                the register of Case C-525/99 (Reference for a preliminary
Landes Salzburg on the following question:                               ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                                                                         Neubau GmbH and Herbert Bogensberger.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
Transfer law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-38/00 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/43)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile by order of that                    By order of 10 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
court of 9 June 2000 in the case of Fonderie Officine                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Meccaniche Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner                       the register of Case C-38/00 (Reference for a preliminary
                  Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH                             ruling from the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, North Western
                                                                         Traffic Area): Public enquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus
                         (Case C-334/00)                                 Joseph, trading under the name of Woodcroft Haulage.
                         (2000/C 302/41)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile (Supreme Court of Cas-


title: Case C-349/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Municipal Court) (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2012 — Peró Gáz Kft. v Balla János

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Municipal Court) (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2012 — Peró Gáz Kft. v Balla János
   (Case C-349/12)
   2012/C 311/03
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság (Budapest Municipal Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peró Gáz Kft.

      Defendant: János Balla

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court is not bound by the claims or statements with legal effect made by the parties, and the court is entitled to order of its own motion any evidence that it may deem necessary?

               2.

               Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, when making its decision, is not bound by the administrative decision made in relation to the application for invalidation, or by the findings established therein, nor, specifically, by the grounds for invalidation indicated during the administrative procedure, or by the declarations, assertions or evidence submitted during the administrative procedure?

               3.

               Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a patent, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, in connection with the requirement for novelty or an inventive step, assesses whether the invention is due the priority of the application date, or merely the priority of the amendment date, assuming that the legislation in force on the application date allowed the applicant to extend the technical content of the patent application, and the scope of the patent awarded, after the application date


title: Case T-104/06: Action brought on  3 April 2006  — Société des plantations de Mbanga (S.P.M.) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/45

         Action brought on 3 April 2006 — Société des plantations de Mbanga (S.P.M.) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-104/06)
   (2006/C 131/84)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga (S.P.M.) (Douala, Cameroon) (represented by: B.-L. Doré, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Grant all of its claims;

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 of 8 February 2006 opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quota for bananas falling under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1 March to 31 December 2006;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the context of the amendments to the specific regime for trade quotas with non-Member States forming part of the measures of market organisation in the banana sector, Council Regulation No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 (1), among other things, conferred on the Commission the power to enact the measures necessary to implement that regulation, as well as transitional measures relating to the management of the tariff quota for bananas originating in ACP countries. In that context, the Commission maintained in its Regulation No 2015/2005 of 9 December 2005 (2), for the months of January and February 2006, the system of granting import licences on the basis of historic references (3). As that regulation was, by definition, transitional, on 8 February 2006 the Commission adopted Regulation No 219/2006 opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quota for bananas falling under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1 March to 31 December 2006 (4). In that regulation, the Commission adopted a method of administering the tariff quota which provides that the quota is to be used by chronological order of acceptance of the declarations for release for free circulation (the ‘first come, first served’ method) and reserves, as a transitional measure, part of the tariff quota for operators who supplied the Community with ACP bananas under the import arrangements previously in force. The annulment of that regulation is sought in this action.
   In the present action, the applicant claims that the contested regulation is legally flawed in a number of respects in that the effect of its provisions is that, whilst 60 % of the tariff quota is administered according to the new method, 40 % is still administered by granting licences on the basis of historic references. In support of its claim, the applicant relies of the same pleas in law and arguments as those put forward in its claim in Case T-447/05 (5).

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rate for bananas (OJ 2005 L 316, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2005 of 9 December 2005 on imports during January and February 2006 of bananas originating in ACP countries under the tariff quota opened by Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (OJ 2005 L 324, p. 5)

      (3)  The applicant seeks annulment of that regulation in Case T-447/05

      (4)  OJ 2006 L 38, p. 22

      (5)  See notice in OJ 2006 C 74, p. 24


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2002 in Case C-372/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 93/13/CEE — Unfair terms in contracts concluded with consumers — Means to prevent the use of those clauses)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 84/9
Notwithstanding what is provided in Article 6(3) of the Agreement           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to
on Social Policy, a provision such as Article L. 12(b) of the French              transpose in full Article 7(3) of Council Directive 93/13/CEE
Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code infringes the principle               of 5 December 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,
of equal pay inasmuch as it excludes male civil servants who are able             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
to prove that they assumed the task of bringing up their children                 Directive;
from entitlement to the credit which it introduces for the calculation
of retirement pensions.                                                     2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 24 January 2002                                                         of 6 December 2001
in Case C-372/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                                               European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
Directive 93/13/CEE — Unfair terms in contracts concluded                               — Fruit and vegetables — Arable crops)
with consumers — Means to prevent the use of those clauses)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/16)
                            (2002/C 84/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-372/99, Commission of the European Communities                    In Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos
(agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (agents: initially               and I.-K. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communi-
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri and, subsequently, U. Leanza,             ties (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) — application for partial
assisted by G. de Bellis): Application for a declaration that, by           annulment of Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July
failing to adopt the measures necessary to:                                 1999 amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of
                                                                            the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                            expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
—      apply the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
       5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ               L 226, p. 26) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
       1993 L 95, p. 29) to all contracts concluded between                 P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward,
       consumers and sellers or suppliers;                                  A. La Pergola and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
                                                                            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
—      transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that directive,         has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:
       and
—      transpose in full Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of that directive,          1.    Dismisses the application;
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
       under that directive,                                                2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola,                  (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: R. Grass, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2001, in which it has ruled:


5.4.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/17
        Removal from the register of Case C-444/01 ( 1)                from the register of Case C-215/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Karin Müller v Postbeam-
                         (2003/C 83/35)                                tenkrankenkasse.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-444/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-241/02 P ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 84 of 06.4.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/39)
                                                                       By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        Removal from the register of Case   C-61/02 (1)
                                                                       from the register of Case C-241/02 P: International and
                                                                       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) v European
                         (2003/C 83/36)
                                                                       Central Bank.
By order of 19 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-337/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/40)
        Removal from the register of Case C-191/02 ( 1)                By order of 4 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 83/37)                                from the register of Case C-337/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-191/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-368/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/41)
        Removal from the register of Case C-215/02 ( 1)
                                                                       By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2003/C 83/38)                                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-368/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case T-346/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2007 — IMS v Commission (Applications for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Directive 98/37/EC — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of the interests involved)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/33

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2007 — IMS v Commission
   (Case T-346/06 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Directive 98/37/EC - Admissibility - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of the interests involved)
   (2007/C 183/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) (Schio, Italy) (represented by: F. Colonna and T. Romolotti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the suspension of operation of Commission Opinion C (2006) 3914 of 6 September 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Commission Opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses is suspended until the Court of First Instance has ruled on the action in the main proceedings.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 January 2001 in Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou v Council of the European Union (Officials — Refusal of recruitment — Physical unfitness — Opinion of the medical board — Judicial review — Comprehensible link between the medical findings and the conclusion of unfitness)

text:
5.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 134/21
1.    Dismissed the application;                                               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Ordered the applicant to pay the costs.                                                    of 17 January 2001
                                                                          in Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fretelli Rossi Snc
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                   v European Atomic Energy Authority, represented by the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability —
                                                                          Flood — Obstruction of a drain — Time-limit — No effect
                                                                                on running of time)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/46)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                        of 18 January 2001
                                                                          In Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc,
                                                                          established in Ispra (Italy), represented by F. Venuti, of the
in Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou v Council of the                        Busto Arsizio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                        European Union (1)                                at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde,
                                                                          against European Atomic Energy Community, represented
(Officials — Refusal of recruitment — Physical unfitness                  by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
— Opinion of the medical board — Judicial review —                        H. Speyart and P. Stancanelli) — application for a declaration
Comprehensible link between the medical findings and the                  that the European Atomic Energy Community is liable for the
                      conclusion of unfitness)                            harm sustained by the applicant following a flood in Ispra
                                                                          during the night of 1-2 June 1992 and, accordingly, for an
                                                                          order that that Community is to make good that damage —
                         (2001/C 134/45)                                  the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                          A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                          H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 January 2001, the
                    (Language of the case: French)                        operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou, a former employee of the
Economic Union between Belgium, the Netherlands and                       2.    The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those
Luxembourg (Benelux) assigned to the Schengen Secretariat,                      incurred by the Commission.
residing in Brussels, represented by J. van Rossum, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            (1) OJ C 226, 7.8.1999, p. 39.
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 13 Avenue du Bois, v
Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Bauer)
— application for annulment of the Council’s decision of
21 May 1999 refusing to appoint the applicant a probationary
official upon the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into
the General Secretariat of the Council on the ground of
physical unfitness to perform the duties envisaged — the Court                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio                                      of 9 January 2001
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                     in Case T-149/00: Innova, Centro Euromediterraneo per
                                                                          lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v Commission of the European
1.    Annuls the decision of the Council of 21 May 1999 refusing                                    Communities (1)
      to appoint the applicant a probationary official upon the
      integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the Secretariat of     (Action for annulment — Action concerning what is in fact
      the Council on the ground of physical unfitness to perform the      a dispute of a contractual nature — Lack of jurisdiction of
      duties envisaged;                                                                      the Court of First Instance)
2.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                                         (2001/C 134/47)
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-149/00: Innova, Centro Euromediterraneo per lo
                                                                          Sviluppo Sostenibile, established at Calatafimi (Italy), represent-


title: Case T-167/16: Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Poland v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/54

         Order of the General Court of 26 October 2016 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-167/16) (1)

   (2017/C 038/71)
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-261/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — European Goldfields v Commission

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/18

         Action brought on 20 May 2011 — European Goldfields v Commission
   (Case T-261/11)
   2011/C 219/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Goldfields Ltd (Whitehorse, Canada) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul European Commission’s Decision of 23 February 2011 in case C 48/2008 (ex NN 61/2008), regarding State aid which Greece has implemented in favour of Ellinikos Xryssos, in particular Articles 1 to 5 thereof; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several manifest errors in establishing and assessing the underlying facts of the case that materially affected the Commission’s application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage to Ellinikos Xryssos, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law in its application and interpretation of the State aid definition element relating to the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, as the Commission erroneously applied, or misapplied, the relevant market economy investor principle.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed several manifest errors in law in its application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107(1) TFEU, by establishing such an economic advantage by reference to the Commission’s own unfounded, selective and arbitrary arguments regarding the alleged value of the transferred assets.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors in law in the application and interpretation of the condition of the existence of an economic advantage, pursuant to Article 107 (1) TFEU, as it erroneously found that the alleged waiver of taxes in favour of Ellinikos Xryssos constituted an economic advantage.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements and misused its power, resulting in a breach of its obligation to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the case.


title: Case T-189/05: Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Usinor against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/40

         Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Usinor against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-189/05)
   (2005/C 182/76)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Usinor, whose registered office is in Paris, represented by Patrice de Condé, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2005;

               2.

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               CORUS UK Limited

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark GALVALLOY — application No 796 557, for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and strip etc)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National word mark GALVALLIA for goods in Class 6 (steel sheet and strip etc)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Registration refused

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Decision of the Opposition Division annulled

               Pleas in law:

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

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.


title: Case T-700/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/71

         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)
   (Case T-700/15)
   (2016/C 038/96)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Volfas Engelman AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BRAVORO PINTA’ — Application for registration No 10 725 381

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2015 in Case R 1649/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and allow registration of the CTM 1072538 and;

               —

               order OHIM to bear the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in identifying the relevant public;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public will display an average level of attention;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred by ignoring the significant visual elements of the applied for mark;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred by finding phonetic similarity between the marks;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in basing the decision on finding that the earlier enjoys enhanced distinctiveness for energy drinks in paragraph 42 of the decision;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in finding a likelihood of confusion.