title: Case C-453/11 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/10

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2011 by Timehouse GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-453/11 P)
   2011/C 340/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Timehouse GmbH (represented by: V. Knies, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and annul the decision of the First Board of appeal of 11 March 2010 in Case R 0492/2009-1 and order the respondent to pay the costs;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union to rehear and decide in the light of the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union and order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court of the European Union misapplied the material criterion for assessing distinctive character in accordance with Article 7(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of the overall appearance of the contested trade mark 7 378 888 for the goods to be registered ‘jewellery; clocks and watches and chronometric instruments’, in that it based its decision solely on an examination of the lack of distinctive character of the individual components of the mark. By drawing conclusions from the (supposed) lack of distinctive character of the individual components of the mark to the lack of distinctive character of the mark applied for as regards its overall appearance, the contested decision was based on the impermissible presumption/conclusion that a mark whose individual components do not have distinctive character cannot have distinctive character in the combination of the components. Since the mark as a whole has distinctive character, however, the decision of the Board of Appeal that was upheld by the General Court was itself wrong.

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


title: Case C-288/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger
   (Case C-288/05)
   (2005/C 257/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger on the following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (‘CISA’):

               1.

               Is it a criminal prosecution of ‘the same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA (1) if a defendant has been convicted by an Italian court of importing contraband foreign tobacco into Italy and of being in possession of it there, as well as of failing to pay duty at the border on importing the tobacco, and is subsequently convicted by a German court — in connection with his earlier receipt of the same goods in Greece — of being party to evasion in relation to the (technically) Greek import duty that arose when the goods were previously imported by third parties, in so far as the defendant had intended from the outset to transport the goods to Great Britain via Italy, after taking delivery of them in Greece?

               2.

               Has a penalty ‘been enforced’ or is it ‘actually in the process of being enforced’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA

                           (a)

                           if the defendant was given a custodial sentence, the enforcement of which was suspended in accordance with the law of the State in which judgment was given;

                           (b)

                           if the defendant was for a short time taken into police custody and/or held on remand pending trial, and that detention would count towards any subsequent enforcement of the penalty of imprisonment under the law of the State in which judgment was given?

               3.

               Is the interpretation of the notion of enforcement for the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA affected by

                           (a)

                           the fact that, having transposed the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) into national law, the (first) State in which judgment was given is in a position at any time to enforce its judgment which, under national law, is final and binding;

                           (b)

                           the fact that a request for judicial assistance by the State in which judgment was given, with a view to extraditing the convicted person or enforcing judgment within that State, could not automatically be complied with because judgment was given in absentia?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19


title: Case T-475/09: Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/65

         Action brought on 30 November 2009 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-475/09)
   2010/C 24/114
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macías Bonilla, H.L. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, 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: Bricocenter Itailia Srl (Rozzano Milanofiori (Milan), Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 — R 500/2008-4.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bricocenter Italia S.r.l.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BRICOCENTER’ (Application No 4 934 147) in respect of services in Class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: ATB Norte, SL.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade marks containing the word elements ‘CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 3 262 623) and ‘ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BRICOCENTRO’ (No 989 046) in respect of services in Classes 35, 37 and 39.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition was upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division’s decision annulled and the opposition rejected in its entirety.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-231/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione staccata di Brescia — by order of that Court of 8 October 2002, 17 December 2002 and 14 February 2003 in the case of Consorzio Aziende Metano — CO.NA.ME. against il Comune di Cingia de' Botti; with the participation of Padania Acque S.p.A.

text:
C 226/4              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           20.9.2003
    the taxable person who receives it, the subsidy concerned                Court of Justice, inasmuch as it is a special rule which has
    will be liable to VAT twice. Although Article 19 provides                no basis in the directive, applies to all taxable persons in
    expressly that the Member States may include in the                      receipt of a subsidy, including fully taxable persons, and,
    deductible proportions for mixed taxable persons those                   even it if its applied to mixed taxable persons, it may in
    subsidies which are not part of the basis of assessment,                 certain circumstances be less advantageous than using the
    that exception to the ‘normal’ method of calculation is a                option provided for by Article 19 of the directive.
    tool available to the national legislature to prevent a body
    which is ‘by its nature’ subsidised obtaining repayment of
    VAT for carrying out a merely nominal activity in order to
    qualify as a taxable person. However, that provision is to          (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
    be interpreted restrictively. On the other hand, it is clear
    that, by including subsidies in the deductible proportion,
    the right to deduct of mixed taxable persons is reduced,
    while that is not possible with regard to fully taxable
    persons. Article 19 is an optional provision and the
    Member States may determine the procedures for
    implementing it provided they observe, as a whole, the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
    basic principles and provisions of the Sixth Directive,             Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione
    which contains other provisions which make it possible to           staccata di Brescia — by order of that Court of
    prevent deductions considered to be abusive.                        8 October 2002, 17 December 2002 and 14 February
                                                                        2003 in the case of Consorzio Aziende Metano —
                                                                        CO.NA.ME. against il Comune di Cingia de' Botti; with
                                                                                the participation of Padania Acque S.p.A.
                                                                                (Case C-231/03)
2.  Laying down of a special rule which limits the right to
    deduct VAT owed for the purchase of goods or services
    financed in whole or in part by subsidies (second para-                                       (2003/C 226/05)
    graph of Article 104(2) of the Spanish Law on VAT).
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunale
    That special rule, according to which subsidies to finance          Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione stac-
    the purchase of certain goods or services do not give rise          cata di Brescia (Lombardy Regional Administrative Court —
    to the application of the deductible proportion and are             Separate Chamber for Brescia) of 8 October 2002,
    not included in the denominator but instead limit the right         17 December 2002 and 14 February 2003, received at the
    to deduct the VAT paid on the portion of the price of the           Court Registry on 28 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
    goods or services financed by the subsidy, is incompatible          case of Consorzio Aziende Metano — CO.NA.ME. against il
    with the Sixth Directive. Indeed, the Spanish provision             Comune di Cingia de' Botti; with the participation of Padania
    establishes a limit on the right to deduct in respect of fully      Acque S.p.A. on the following question:
    taxable persons which is not provided for under the
    directive. As for mixed taxable persons, the only limitation
    possible under the directive is the inclusion of the
    subsidies in the denominator of the deductible proportion.
                                                                        Do Articles 43, 49 and 81 EC, in so far as they prohibit,
    The VAT which a taxable person has paid for a certain
                                                                        respectively, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of
    service or certain goods is always deductible in accordance
                                                                        nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member
    with the rules on the right to deduct provided for by the
                                                                        State and on the freedom to provide services within the
    directive and, to that end, the source of the financing for
                                                                        Community in respect of nationals of Member States and the
    the goods or services are of no relevance whatever. The
                                                                        commercial practices of undertakings which have as their effect
    Member States may take into account only those subsidies
                                                                        the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within
    which are not linked to the price of the transaction, and
                                                                        the European Union, preclude provision for the direct award,
    may choose whether or not to include them in the
                                                                        without the announcement of a tender, of the management of a
    deductible proportion only if the taxable person carries
                                                                        public contract for the distribution of gas to a company in
    out, at the same time, taxed and exempt transactions.
                                                                        which a local authority participates, whenever that participa-
    Application of the provision is optional and the Member
                                                                        tion in the share capital is such as to preclude any direct control
    States may determine the procedures for implementing it
                                                                        over the management itself and must it therefore be declared
    provided they observe the basic principles and provisions
                                                                        that, as is the case in these proceedings where the shareholding
    of the Sixth Directive as a whole.
                                                                        amounts to 0,97 % of the share capital, the essential precondi-
                                                                        tions for ‘in-house’ management are not met?
    The Spanish provision infringes the fundamental right to
    deduct VAT, acknowledged as such in the case-law of the


title: Case T-328/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Mundipharma v OHIM — AFT Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Maxigesic — Earlier Community word mark OXYGESIC — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Mundipharma v OHIM — AFT Pharmaceuticals (Maxigesic)
   (Case T-328/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Maxigesic - Earlier Community word mark OXYGESIC - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 352/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg an der Lahn, Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Takapuna, New Zealand) (represented by: M. Nentwig, L. Kouker and G.M. Becker, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2012 (Case R 1788/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mundipharma GmbH and AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mundipharma GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Action brought on 29 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Coal Products Ltd (Case C-274/97)

text:
C 271 / 12            I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 9 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            a loan agreement with Coal Products Ltd ('the
                                                                       Defendants') according to which the Applicant, acting
1 . declare that, by failing to implement within the                   pursuant to Article 54 of the ECSC Treaty, agreed to lend
    prescribed period all measures necessary to comply                 £10 million to the Defendants with a view to promoting
    with Council Directive 90/605/EEC (') of 8 November                the consumption of coal produced within the Community.
     1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual                      An interest rebate was also granted by the agreement.
    accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated
    accounts as regards the scope of those Directives, the             The rebate was fixed as the sterling equivalent of ECU
    Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its               1 875 420 . However, this sum was to be adjusted
    obligations under the EC Treaty;                                   according to the quantity of Community coal actually
                                                                       consumed . The interest rebate was calculated on the basis
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                   that the Defendants would consume 350 000 tonnes per
    costs .                                                            annum of ECSC coal over a 5-year period commencing on
                                                                       28 May 1993 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The loan was due to be repaid in one instalment on
The binding nature of directives in accordance with the                28 May 1997. However a management and employee
third paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of              buy-out of Coal Products Ltd took place on 30 January
Article 5 of the EC Treaty means that Member States to                 1995 and the loan was repaid on 3 February 1995 .
which a directive is addressed are obliged to achieve the
objectives therein specified within the prescribed period.
Such period expired on 1 January 1993 , without Germany                The dispute between the parties relates to only one issue :
taking all necessary internal measures to implement the                the starting date of the period for assessing the quantities
directive .                                                            of coal consumed by the Defendants .
(') OJ L 317, 16 . 11 . 1990, p . 60 .
                                                                       The Commission takes the view that the starting date is
                                                                       28 May 1993 . The Defendants seek to show that the loan
                                                                       agreement was varied in accordance with an offer
                                                                       purportedly made in a letter from the Commission dated
                                                                       23 January 1995 . By requesting coal consumption figures
                                                                       for the 'three years immediately preceding the date of
Action brought on 29 July 1997 by the Commission of the                transfer to the MEBO ' ( i.e. 30 January 1995 ), the
      European Communities against Coal Products Ltd                   Commission is said to have offered to bring the starting
                          ( Case C-274/97 )                            date of the assessment back to 28 May 1992 . The
                                                                       Defendants argue that they accepted the Commission's
                            ( 97/C 271 /20                             offer by their letters of 30 January and 20 March 1995 .
                                                                       Accordingly, they argue that the starting date for the
An action against Coal Products Ltd of Mill Lane,                      assessment period set down in the loan agreement was
Wingerworth, Chesterfield, Derbyshire S42 6NG, England                 varied by the mutual consent of the parties.
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 July 1997 by the Commission of the                   The Commission submits that the exchange of letters
European Communities, represented by Messrs Peter                      between the Commission and Coal Products Ltd could
Oliver and Barry Doherty, members of the Legal Service,                only be relied upon as changing the initial contract if ( i )
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                       there were clear words doing so or ( ii ) there was a clear
Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                indication of the parties' intention to do so. The
a member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.               Commission never had any such intention.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The Applicant submits that the Defendants' claim is
                                                                       wholly untenable for the following reasons :
— order the Defendants to pay:
     ( 1 ) the sum of ECU 252 558 ;                                    ( i ) By a mere request for figures, the Commission's letter
                                                                               of 23 January 1995 could not, on any reasonable
     ( 2 ) interest on that sum at 8 % from 3 February 1995,                   construction, be taken as suggesting that the starting
           being the date on which the debt became due;                        date for the assessment period set out in the loan
                                                                               agreement be amended;
     ( 3 ) the costs of the present proceedings.
                                                                        ( ii ) Even on the extreme hypothesis that the loan
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            agreement could theoretically have been amended by
                                                                               such a request for information, in the instant case the
On 21 May 1992 the European Coal and Steel Community,                          period referred to by the Commission was plainly the
represented by the Commission ('the Applicant'), concluded                     result of a mistake on its part;
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97               lEN ]                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 271 /13
( iii ) The starting date of 28 May 1992 for which the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
         Defendants contend is neither that laid down in the             van Beroep by order of that court of 10 July 1997 in the
         loan agreement nor that purportedly suggested by the            case of Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. ( 1 ) C.J.
         Commission in its letter of 23 January 1995 . The                                  Voeten and ( 2 ) J. Beckers
         notion that the assessment period commenced on                                           (Case C-279/97)
         28 May 1992 thus has no basis in law.
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /22 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by the Centrale Raad van Beroep
                                                                         ( Court of last instance in social security matters) by order
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the                  of that court of 10 July 1997 in the case of Landelijk
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                   Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. ( 1 ) C.J. Voeten and (2 ) J.
                            ( Case C-277/97)                             Beckers on the following questions:
                              ( 97/C 271/21 )                            1 . Does Article 51 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 547/72 ( ] )
                                                                              preclude the competent institution from carrying out
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                          in the country of the competent institution a medical
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                       examination on a person in receipt of benefit for
on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European                             incapacity for work as part of checking the employee's
Communities, represented by Lena Strom and Gotz zur                           degree of incapacity in the absence of a prior medical
Hausen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                      examination carried out by the institution of the place
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                          of stay or residence, where the employee is a frontier
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     worker and, as a result, it can be taken that the
                                                                              distance between his place of residence and the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   competent institution is not necessarily greater than
                                                                              the distance between his place of residence and the
 1 . declare that, by failing to implement within the                         institution of the place of residence ?
        prescribed period all measures necessary to comply
                                                                         2.   In the case of determination for the first time of
        with Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February
        1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of                   entitlement to benefit, does Article 40 of Regulation
        radioactive waste between Member States and into                      ( EEC ) No 574/72 preclude the competent institution
        and out of the Community ('), the Kingdom of                          from assessing the incapacity for work on the basis of
        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                its own medical examination, without a prior medical
        EAEC Treaty;                                                          examination by the institution of the place of
                                                                              residence ?
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the negative: does that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           also apply where the competent institution has not
                                                                              requested and hence not taken account of medical
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                      documents and reports and also information from the
in Case C-220/97 (2 ).                                                        institution of the place of residence, but only apprised
                                                                              itself of medical information from the attending
H OJ L 35 , 12 . 2 . 1992, p . 24 .                                           practitioner in the country where the employee is
( 2 ) OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 15 .                                       undergoing medical treatment ?
                                                                         (') OJ, English Special Edition, 1972 ( I ), p. 160 .


title: Case T-369/09: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Quinta do Portal v OHIM — Vallegre (PORTO ALEGRE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE — Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Quinta do Portal v OHIM — Vallegre (PORTO ALEGRE)
      (Case T-369/09) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE - Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2010/C 288/76)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Applicant: Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA (Sabrosa, Portugal) (represented by: P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto, SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Sociedade Quinta do Portal SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-512/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Aviation sector — Irish air travel tax — Exemption for transit and transfer passengers — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to open the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of parties concerned)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Ryanair v Commission
      (Case T-512/11) (1)

      (State aid - Aviation sector - Irish air travel tax - Exemption for transit and transfer passengers - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to open the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Procedural rights of parties concerned)
      (2015/C 016/49)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.-G. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents); and Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, A. Joyce and E. Mc Phillips, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Regan SC)

         Re:

      Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN));

                  2)

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair Ltd;

                  3)

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-809/14: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission (Action for annulment — Language regime — Vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for bodies of the European Union — Linguistic requirements in the on-line presentation module for candidates — Alleged discrepancy with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal — Letter sent by the Commission following the closure of the application procedure — Inadmissible)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/56

         Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-809/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Language regime - Vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for bodies of the European Union - Linguistic requirements in the on-line presentation module for candidates - Alleged discrepancy with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal - Letter sent by the Commission following the closure of the application procedure - Inadmissible))
   (2016/C 038/74)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of a decision allegedly made by the Commission contained in a letter of 2 October 2014, sent to the Director General for the European Union of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Commission Director General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Human Resources and Security.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-72/02: Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

text:
C 97/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         20.4.2002
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission                  2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
of the European Communities against the Republic of                   represented by António Caeiros, acting as Agent, with an
                              Austria                                 address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-61/02)
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 97/15)
                                                                      —     Declare that
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                       1.    by failing to transpose the following provisions into
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        its legal system:
26 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                   —     Article 3(3), Article 10, Article 11 and Arti-
Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254,                            cle 12(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC;
Kirchberg.
                                                                                —     Article 7, Article 8 and Article 12 of Directive
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                            79/409/EEC; and
1.    declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid              2.    by failing to transpose correctly
      down the provisions and measures necessary to comply
      with Council Directive 98/58/EC (1) of 20 July 1998
      concerning the protection of animals kept for farming                       —     Article 1,     Article      6(3),      Article 6(4),
      purposes, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its                        Article 12(1)(d), Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of
      obligations under the EC Treaty;                                                  Directive 92/43/EEC,
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                —     Article 2, Article 4(1), Article 4(4) and Article 6
                                                                                of Directive 79/409/EEC,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under Article 23 of Directive 92/43/EEC Council Direc-
By virtue of the binding nature of the third paragraph of                   tive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, the                of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and
Member States are obliged to transpose a directive addressed                Article 18 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (2) of 2 April
to them into national law so that it has full effect on expiry of           1979 on the conservation of wild birds;
the period laid down for its transposition. The period for
transposition laid down in Article 10 of the directive expired        —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
on 31 December 1999 without all Länder having as yet
adopted the necessary provisions.
(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The Portuguese Republic has not contested any of the Commis-
                                                                      sion’s complaints set out in the reasoned opinion. Rather, it
                                                                      appears from the reply of the Portuguese Government and, in
Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Commission of the                   particular, from the report that legislation implementing
    European Communities against Portuguese Republic                  Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC is being prepared, that
                                                                      that Government admits that those complaints are well
                                                                      founded.
                         (Case C-72/02)
                         (2002/C 97/16)
                                                                      (1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
                                                                      (2) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March


title: Case T-156/14: Order of the General Court of 5 May 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/38

         Order of the General Court of 5 May 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (StartUp)
   (Case T-156/14) (1)

   2014/C 194/55
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 17 October 1995 in Case C-227/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam): E. Olivieri-Coenen v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Social security - Incapacity for work - Contract of employment subject to private law - Employment subject to a scheme for civil servants - Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Point 4 (a) of the section on the Netherlands contained in Annex V to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
No C 315/6          1 EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25 . 11 . 95
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 17 October 1995                                                         ( First Chamber )
in Joined Cases C-140/94, C-141/94 and C-142/94                                               of 17 October 1995
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
                                                                       in Case C-227/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto ): DIP SpA and                  from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam ):
Others v. Comune di Bassano del Grappa and Comune di
                             Chioggia (*)                              E. Olivieri-Coenen v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
                                                                                Bedrijfsvereniging ( ] )
(Regulation of trade — Licences to open shops —
                                                                       (Social security — Incapacity for work — Contract of
                            Competition)
                                                                       employment subject to private law — Employment subject
                           ( 95/C 315/ 10 )                            to a scheme for civil servants — Article 4 (4) ofRegulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1408/71 — Point 4 (a) of the section on the
                                                                       Netherlands contained in Annex V to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1408/71)
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                                     ( 95/C 315/ 11
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-140/94, C-141 /94 and C-142/94 :
reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto              In Case C-227/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Regional Administrative Court for the Veneto Region ) for            of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            (District Court ), Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the
court between DIP SpA and Comune di Bassano del Grappa                 proceedings pending before that court between E.
( C-140/94 ) and between LIDL Italia Sri and Comune di                 Olivieri-Coenen and Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
Chioggia ( C-141 /94 ) and between Lingral Sri and Comune              Bedrijfsvereniging — on the interpretation of point 4 ( a ) of
di Chioggia ( C-142/94 ) on the interpretation of Articles 30,         the Section on the Netherlands contained in Annex V to
85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, the Court ( Second Chamber ),              Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June
composed of: G. Hirsch ( President of the Chamber ), G. F.             1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; N.              employed persons and their families moving within the
Fennelly, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                       Community ( OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2 ) — the Court ( First
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
judgment on 17 October 1995 , in which it ruled that:                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges;
                                                                       C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       17 October 1995 , in which it rules :
 On a proper construction Articles 3 (g), 5, 85, 86 and 30 of
the Treaty do not preclude rules of a Member State which
make the opening of new shops subject to the grant of a
licence issued by the mayor on the mandatory opinion of a              Point 4 (a) of the Section on the Netherlands contained in
municipal committee, where the members ofthat committee                Annex V of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
appointed or nominated by traders ' organizations to give               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
expert advice are in the minority and its opinions must have           to employed persons and their families moving within the
regard to the public interest, and where the mayor, who                Community is to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
holds the power of decision, is obliged to take into account           paid employment include periods in which a person worked
public interest criteria laid down in a commercial                     as a teacher under a contract ofemployment concluded with
development plan drawn up by the municipality.                         a private educational establishment, even if that person was
                                                                       insured during that period under a special scheme for civil
                                                                       servants and persons treated as such .
 (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                        ( 1 ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-84/00: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — Free movement of articles of precious metal — Rules on acceptable standards of fineness)

text:
C 212/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.7.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                           (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 14 June 2001
                                                                                of 14 June 2001
in Case C-84/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)                            in Case C-207/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 28 EC) — Free movement of articles of precious
                                                                           Failure to implement Directive 97/36/EC amending Directive
     metal — Rules on acceptable standards of fineness)
                                                                           89/552/EEC — Coordination of certain provisions laid down
                                                                           by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
                           (2001/C 212/06)                                  concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/07)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-84/00: Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: R. Wainwright) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                                  in the European Court Reports)
Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a declaration that,
by failing to allow the marketing within France of articles of
precious metals which come from other Member States and                    In Case C-207/00: Commission of the European Communities
purport to have a standard of fineness of ‘999 parts per                   (Agents: K. Banks and L. Pignataro) v Italian Republic (Agent:
thousand’, despite the fact that that standard is commonly                 U. Leanza, assisted by I.M. Braguglia) — application for a
used in commercial practice, the French Republic has failed to             declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
comply with its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty              administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
(now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court (Third                   97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the
er, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;               coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              or administrative action in Member States concerning the
judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                                     pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202,
                                                                           p. 60), specifically Article 1(1) amending Article 1(c) of Council
1.    Declares that, by failing to allow the marketing within France       Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination
      of articles of precious metals which come from other Member          of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
      States and purport to have a standard of fineness of ‘999 parts      trative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
      per thousand’, despite the fact that that standard is commonly       television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23);
      used in commercial practice, the French Republic has failed to       Article 1(2) which replaces Article 2 of Directive 89/552 with
      comply with its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty        the exception of Article 2(3), (4), (5) and (6); Article 1(3) which
      (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);                               inserts Article 2a into Directive 89/552; Article 1(4) which
                                                                           incorporates Article 3a(3) in Directive 89/552; Article 1(12),
                                                                           which replaces Article 10 of Directive 89/552, with the
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         exception of Article 10(2); Article 1(14) which amends the
                                                                           first sentence of Article 12 of Directive 89/552; Article 1(15)
                                                                           which replaces Article 13 of Directive 89/552; and lastly
                                                                           Article 1(18) which adds a paragraph 2 to Article 16 to
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                                 Directive 89/552, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
                                                                           D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                           on 14 June 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-274/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services — Article 26(3) — Single European emergency call number — Making available caller location information)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania
   (Case C-274/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services - Article 26(3) - Single European emergency call number - Making available caller location information)
   (2008/C 285/15)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not ensuring in practice that authorities handling emergencies are, to the extent technically feasible, given caller location information for all callers to the single European emergency call number ‘112’ when public telephone networks are used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-571/15: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/46

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY)
   (Case T-571/15) (1)

   (2016/C 191/66)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-154/03: Action brought on 2 May 2003 by Biofarma against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
5.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
—     annul the Contested Decision in whole or in part,                   sition proceedings:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of this Case and              Mark or sign cited in         Word mark ‘ARTEX’ registered in
      of Case T-276/02.                                                   opposition:                   France, Portugal and the Benelux
                                                                                for goods in Class 5
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
The applicant in the present case is the same association as in
                                                                          Appeal:                       Opposition Division and dis-
case T-276/02, Forum against Commission (1). The applicant
                                                                                missal of the appeal
challenges the final decision relating to the same Belgian State
Aid measure which was, as far as the decision to open the                 Pleas in law:                 Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
procedure as foreseen by Article 88(2) of the Treaty was                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
involved, the object of that case. The grounds and main                                                 lihood of confusion)
arguments are those submitted in that aforementioned case.
( 1) OJEC C 289, 23.11.02, p. 28.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Químicas
                                                                          del Vallés, S.A. against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 2 May 2003 by Biofarma against the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                            (Case T-158/03)
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/50)
                        (Case T-154/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                        (2003/C 158/49)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 May 2003 by Industrias Quí-
                                                                          micas del Vallés, S.A., whose registered office is in Mollet del
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Vallés (Barcelona, Spain), represented by Cani Fernández
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Vicién, Paloma González-Espejo and Julio Sabater Marotias,
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                lawyers.
2 May 2003 by Biofarma, represented by Antonia Ruiz López
and Víctor Gil Vega, lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May
                                                                                2003,
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (Third Board of Appeal)
      of 5 February 2003 and declare that there is a likelihood           —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs,
      of confusion between the trade marks ARTEX and                            including those incurred for the purposes of making an
      ALREX, which designate similar goods.                                     application for interim relief.
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          This action is directed against Commission Decision 2003/
                                                                          308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of
Applicant for Com-             Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals              metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
munity trade mark:             Inc.                                       withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products
                                                                          containing this active substance (1).
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘ALREX’ — Appli-
sought:                        cation No 789461 for goods in
                               Class 5 (ophthalmological prod-            In support of its claims, the applicant company relies on the
                               ucts)                                      following pleas in law and main arguments:


title: Case C-340/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) lodged on 23 July 2008 — The Queen (on the application of M) (FC) v Her Majesty's Treasury and two other actions

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) lodged on 23 July 2008 — The Queen (on the application of M) (FC) v Her Majesty's Treasury and two other actions
   (Case C-340/08)
   (2008/C 260/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen (on the application of M) (FC)

      Defendant: Her Majesty's Treasury and two other actions
   Question referred
   Does Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (1) apply to the provision by the State of social security or social assistance benefits to the spouse of a person designated by the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Resolution 1267 (1999) on the ground only that the spouse lives with the designated person and will or may use some of the money to pay for goods and services which the latter will consume or from which he will benefit?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ L 139, p. 9).


title: Case C-388/04: Order of the President of the Court of  7 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Queen's Bench Division — Administrative Court) — South Western Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Queen's Bench Division — Administrative Court) — South Western Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-388/04) (1)

   (2006/C 154/28)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case T-3/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Representation of parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/54

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Representation of parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-3/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 027/69)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: K-Swiss Inc. (Westlake Village, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and M. Hecht, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 (Case R 1093/2014-2), concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of a figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders K-Swiss Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case C-188/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ionel Opria

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ionel Opria
   (Case C-188/16)
   (2016/C 260/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Ionel Opria
   Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

      Question referred

   Must Article 2, Article 3(1)(c) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings against an accused person with no fixed domicile or residence in that Member State, a penalty order made against the accused can be served on a person appointed by him as being authorised to accept service on his behalf, with the result that the penalty order acquires the force of res judicata upon expiry of the (two-week) period for lodging an objection, which begins to run from the time of service on the authorised person, even where, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State, any such accused person who lodges a written objection against the penalty order with the court having jurisdiction within two weeks of actually becoming aware of that order must ex officio have his position restored to the status quo ante, with the result that, following the adoption of the decision to restore the status quo ante, proceedings must continue as they would in the case of an objection lodged in good time?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2002 in Case C-213/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite Cemento SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
10.8.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/11
1.    The first and fourth grounds of appeal are dismissed as                1.    The fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal are dismissed in
      manifestly unfounded.                                                        their entirety as manifestly unfounded.
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                    2.    Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 5 June 2002
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
in Case C-213/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite
Cemento SpA v Commission of the European Communi-                            in Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA v Commission of
                                 ties (1)                                                      the European Communities (1)
(Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the                       (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part                           EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                       manifestly unfounded)                                  manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                           (2002/C 191/18)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/19)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-219/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite Cemento
SpA, established in Bergamo, Italy, represented by A. Predieri,              In Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA, formerly Unicem
M. Siragusa, M. Beretta, C. Lanciani and F. M. Moretti, lawyers              SpA, established in Casale Monferrato (Italy), represented by
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                 C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers — appeal against the judgment
of the European Communities, Fourth Chamber, Extended                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Composition, of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95,                       Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of 15 March 2000
T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95                     in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/
to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/                    95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to
95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/95 to T-104/95 Cimente-                     T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/
ries CBR and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking                  95 to T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                      [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities                     the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
(Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (Fifth               European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, Presidents of the Chamber,                    Ferro) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                   Presidents of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                  Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 June 2002, the                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order
operative part of which is as follows:                                       on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2004 in Case C-155/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/70/EC — Medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma — Failure to transpose)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 22 June 2004
   in Case C-155/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/70/EC - Medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma - Failure to transpose)
   (2004/C 217/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-155/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. Stromsky and R. Amorosi) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma (OJ 2000 L 313, p. 22), or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)   OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case F-79/06: Action brought on 24 July 2006 — Caló v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/17

         Action brought on 24 July 2006 — Caló v Commission
   (Case F-79/06)
   (2006/C 237/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuseppe Caló (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decisions of the Director-General of DG Eurostat providing for, first, the reorganisation of that DG by way of acts changing the duties assigned to directors and, second, the rejection of the applicant's request to be appointed to one of the vacant posts of director, or one that might become vacant.

               —

               An order that the defendant should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the defendant, after challenging before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, first, the decision to reassign him to the post of Chief Adviser in the DG in which he was employed (1) and, second, the decision to reject his application for a post of Director in the same DG (2), currently disputes the defendant's decisions, taken in the context of the reorganisation of DG Eurostat, to reject his application for the post of Director announced in vacancy notice COM/2006/164, and to appoint another candidate to that post.
   In support of his application, the applicant relies on infringement of: (i) the duty to give reasons, (ii) Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and (iii) of the Rules of Conduct for Appointments to Posts in Grades A1 and A2, approved by the defendant on 18 September 1999, as confirmed and further defined by the Compilation Document on Senior Officials Policy, approved by the defendant on 26 October 2004.

      (1)  Case T-118/04 (OJ C 118, 30.04.2004, p. 47).

      (2)  Case T-134/04 (OJ C 146, 29.05.2004, p. 6).


title: Case C-292/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case of Albacom S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione economica

text:
29.9.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 275/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                 that (according to the interpretation which has been given
Stato by order of that court of 12 June 2001 in the case               thereto in the present case) would mean that a ‘best before’
of Albacom S.p.A. against Ministero del Tesoro, del                    date of four days after preparation would apply to milk
        Bilancio e della Programmazione economica                      pasteurised at high temperature (a type of milk contemplated
                                                                       and governed solely by Directive 46/92/EEC and Decree
                        (Case C-292/01)                                54/97/EEC).
                        (2001/C 275/18)                                (1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 17.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (3) OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 21.
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Council of State) of 12 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 23 July 2001, in the case of Albacom S.p.A. against
Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione
economica on the following question:
                                                                       Action brought on 7 August 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
May Directive 97/13/EC (1) permit Member States to require
undertakings holding a licence or authorisation to carry on                                      (Case C-312/01)
telecommunications activities to make financial payments,
whatever they may be called, other than and in addition to                                       (2001/C 275/20)
those allowed by the Directive?
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997, p. 15.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 August
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Elsa Christina Tufvesson, Commission Legal
                                                                       Adviser, and Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service.
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
di Bologna by order of that court of 24 May 2001 in the                —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     case of Granarolo SpA against Comune di Bologna                         Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                        (Case C-294/01)                                      comply fully with Directive 98/78/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 (1) on
                        (2001/C 275/19)                                      the supplementary supervision of insurance undertakings
                                                                             in an insurance group, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Bologna (District Civil Court, Bologna) of 24 May 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 23 July 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Granarolo SpA against
Comune di Bologna on the following question:                           Pleas in law and main arguments
May application of the combined provisions of Council                  The Member States are required by the binding character of
Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health             the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC (ex
rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk,        Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) to adopt the measures
heat-treated milk and milk-based products (1) (implemented in          needed to transpose directives into national law before the
Italy by Presidential Decree No 54 of 14 January 1997) and             expiry of the time-limit laid down for that purpose and to
Directives 89/395/EEC (2) and 89/396/EEC (3), which concern            communicate those measures immediately to the Commission.
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs              That time-limit expired on 5 June 2000 without the Hellenic
(implemented in Italy by Legislative Decree No 109 of                  Republic having notified to the Commission the provisions
27 January 1992) be limited by the content of a piece of               transposing the directive in question into national law.
national legislation (in particular Article 5(3), in relation to
Article 3, of Law No 169 of 3 May 1989). If it is so limited,          (1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1.


title: Case C-50/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Kendrion NV v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Cartels — Industrial plastic bags sector — Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company — Joint and several liability of the parent company for the payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary — Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court — Principle of effective legal protection)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Kendrion NV v European Commission
   (Case C-50/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Joint and several liability of the parent company for the payment of the fine imposed on the subsidiary - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)
   2014/C 39/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kendrion NV (represented by: P. Glazener and T. Ottervanger, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and S. Noë, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-54/06 Kendrion v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in so far as it is addressed to Kendrion, concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector, and application for annulment or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on Kendrion.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Kendrion NV to pay the costs of this appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case T-53/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/45

         Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
   (Case T-53/07)
   (2007/C 95/93)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Trade-Stomil Sp z o. o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: F. Carlin, barrister, E. W. Batchelor, solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision, in particular Articles 1 to 4 thereof, to the extent that it applies to Trade-Stomil; or

               —

               annulment of Article 2 of the decision insofar as it pertains to Trade-Stomil; or

               —

               modification of Article 2 of the decision as it pertains to Trade-Stomil, so as to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Trade-Stomil therein; and, in any event,

               —

               order that the Commission pay its own costs and Trade-Stomil's costs in connection with these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.
   The applicant relies upon fourteen grounds in support of its claims. According to the applicant:

               i)

               the Commission infringed Article 81 EC, as it allegedly failed to prove to the requisite standard that Trade-Stomil participated in the cartel;

               ii)

               the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons in finding that the duration of Trade-Stomil's participation in the cartel amounted to three months;

               iii)

               the Commission is said to lack the jurisdiction which is necessary to address a decision to Trade-Stomil under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53 EEA agreement;

               iv)

               the Commission further infringed Article 81 EC finding that Trade-Stomil was acting as a non-genuine agent of Dwory;

               v)

               the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons in finding that Trade-Stomil was acting as a non-genuine agent of Dwory;

               vi)

               the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment in setting the starting point of the fine based on Dwory and Trade-Stomil's combined turnover;

               vii)

               the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons by fining Trade-Stomil on the basis of Trade-Stomil and Dwory's sales turnover, rather than Trade-Stomil's turnover alone;

               viii)

               the Commission allegedly infringed the principle of equality in calculating the starting point on Trade-Stomil, as a mere agent with no control over prices or quantities, in the same way as a supplier/producer;

               ix)

               the Commission infringed the duty to follow self-imposed rules by not taking into account Trade-Stomil's passive or follow-my-leader participation in the cartel;

               x)

               the Commission infringed the duty to follow self-imposed rules by failing to reduce the fine for non-implementation;

               xi)

               the Commission decision breached the principle of proportionality in setting the fine;

               xii)

               the Commission infringed the rights of defence by failing to hear Trade-Stomil as to the basis on which it proposed to assume jurisdiction extra-territorially;

               xiii)

               the Commission failed to establish or hear Trade-Stomil as to the intentional or negligent nature of the infringement;

               xiv)

               the Commission allegedly erred in calculating the fine.


title: Case C-222/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione – Sezione Quinta Civile – by order of that court of 23 March 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze against Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze S.p.A., Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato e Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato S.p.A.

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione – Sezione Quinta Civile – by order of that court of 23 March 2004 in the case of Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze against Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze S.p.A., Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato e Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato S.p.A.
   (Case C-222/04)
   (2004/C 190/14)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione – Sezione Quinta Civile – (Supreme Court of Cassation – Fifth Civil Chamber), Italy, of 23 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 May 2004.
   For a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze against Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze S.p.A., Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato e Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato S.p.A. on the following questions:

               (a)

               Must a group of bodies (namely banking foundations), created on the basis of Law No 218/90 and Legislative Decree No 356/90, as subsequently amended, be considered to be subject to the Community rules on competition – even where they are assigned objects of social benefit – as a result of owning controlling holdings in companies engaged in banking activity and as a result of administering those holdings, in relation to a very large number of bodies operating on the market, with the proceeds of the controlled undertakings devolving to the latter? With regard to the rules introduced by Legislative Decree No 153/99, does the possibility afforded those entities of using the proceeds of the disposal of such holdings to acquire and manage substantial shareholdings in other undertakings – including banking undertakings – for different purposes, including the economic development of the system, similarly constitute a commercial activity for the purposes of the application of Community law on competition?

               (b)

               Consequently, are those entities, under the rules contained in Law No 218/90 and Legislative Decree No 356/90, as subsequently amended, as well as the reform contained in Law No 461/98 and Legislative Decree No 153/99, subject to the Community rules on State aid (Articles 87 to 88 of the EC Treaty), in relation to a preferential tax regime which applies to them?

               (c)

               If question (b) above is answered in the affirmative, does or does not the system of direct tax relief on dividends received, which is at issue in this case, constitute State aid, within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty?

               (d)

               Again, if question (b) above is answered in the affirmative, is the Decision of the European Commission of 22 August 2002 (1), in which the rules on State aid were held to be inapplicable to the foundations of banking origin, valid, having regard to the issues of lawfulness and the lack and/or inadequacy of reasoning set out in this order for reference?

               (e)

               Leaving out of consideration the question whether the rules on State aids are applicable, does according more favourable tax treatment to the distribution of the profits of the – exclusively national – conferred banking undertakings, controlled by the foundations, and received by the latter, or of those undertakings in which holdings were acquired using the proceeds from the disposal of holdings in conferred banking companies, constitute discrimination against the undertakings invested in as compared with the other undertakings operating on the market and, at the same time, infringe the principles of freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, in relation to Articles 12, 43 et seq and Article 56 et seq of the EC Treaty?

      (1)  OJ L 55, 1.3.2003, p. 56.


title: Case F-42/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2003 appraisal procedure — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission
   (Case F-42/05) (1)

   (Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2003 appraisal procedure - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 56/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report under the 2003 appraisal procedure and, secondly, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005, p. 45 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-222/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).