title: Case T-267/07: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure excluded from financing — Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Obligation to state reasons — Reasonable time)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/60

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-267/07) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Clearance of accounts - Expenditure excluded from financing - Excessive delay in the assessment by the Commission of the communications sent pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 - Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Obligation to state reasons - Reasonable time)
   2013/C 225/133
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

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

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2007 L 122, p. 51).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2007/327/EC of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year in that that the Commission charged to the Italian Republic 50 % of the financial consequences of the failure to recover with respect to the following cases of irregularities: Coprap (IT/1987/001), Tabacchi Levante (IT/1987/002), Casearia Sarda (IT/1991/001), Beca (IT/1994/009), Soc.Coop.Super (IT/1995/003/A), Vinicola Magna (IT/1995/005/A), Eurotrade (IT/1995/015/A), COASO — Italiana Tabacchi (IT/1995/016/A), Ionia (IT/1995/017/A), Beca (IT/1995/018), Addeo Fruit (IT/1995/021), Quaranta (IT/1996/003), D’Apolito (IT/1996/007), Sibillo (IT/1996/016), Agrocom (IT/1996/019), Procaccini (IT/1996/020), Addeo Fruit (IT/1996/023), Mediterrane Vini (IT/1996/001), Oleificio Centro Italia (IT/1996/029), Procaccini (IT/1997/002), Soc.Coop.Super (IT/1997/006/A), Savict (IT/1997/01), Agricola S. Giuseppe (IT/1997/012), Terra D’Oro (IT/1997/017/A), Toscana Tabacchi (IT/1997/018).

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the costs incurred by the Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case C-565/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais SA v Fesih Kalhan (Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48/EC — Articles 8 and 23 — Creditor’s obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness prior to conclusion of the agreement — National provision imposing the obligation to consult a database — Forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest in the event of failure to comply with that obligation — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — France) — LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais SA v Fesih Kalhan
   (Case C-565/12) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Articles 8 and 23 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness prior to conclusion of the agreement - National provision imposing the obligation to consult a database - Forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest in the event of failure to comply with that obligation - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty))
   2014/C 151/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LCL Le Crédit Lyonnais SA

      Defendant: Fesih Kalhan

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans — Interpretation of Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66), in the light of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Credit institution’s obligation to check the borrower’s creditworthiness — Requirement for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in the event of the creditor’s failure to fulfil that obligation — Forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest — Whether it is permissible to maintain for the creditor’s benefit statutory interest that becomes payable by operation of law at an increased statutory rate

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national system of penalties under which, in the event of failure on the part of the creditor to comply with its obligation, prior to conclusion of an agreement, to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness by consulting the relevant database, that creditor forfeits its entitlement to contractual interest but is automatically entitled to interest at the statutory rate, payable from the date of delivery of a court decision ordering that borrower to pay the outstanding sums, which is further increased by five percentage points if, on expiry of a period of two months following that decision, the borrower has not repaid his debt in full, where the referring court finds that — in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the outstanding amount of the principal of the loan is immediately payable as a result of the borrower’s default — the amounts which the creditor is in fact likely to receive following the application of the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to contractual interest are not significantly lower than those which it could have received had it complied with its obligation to assess the borrower’s creditworthiness.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.


title: Case F-33/12: Action brought on 9 March 2012 — ZZ v ERCEA

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/23

         Action brought on 9 March 2012 — ZZ v ERCEA
   (Case F-33/12)
   2012/C 184/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo)

      Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Partial annulment of the applicant’s contract with the ERCEA in the part in which he is graded at AD 10.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the part of the ERCEA’s decision and of the decision to reject the applicant’s complaint in which they classify the applicant at grade 10;

               —

               Order the ERCEA to pay damages for the material harm sustained by the applicant, calculated on the basis of the salary difference between a CA3a and a CA3b, function group III, in respect of the whole period of his contract with the ERCEA, and for the non-material harm sustained by him, plus compensatory and default interest at the rate of 6.75% for the non-material and material harm sustained;

               —

               Order the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) to pay the costs.


title: Case T-191/13: Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Spain v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/29

         Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-191/13)
   2013/C 147/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul notice of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6), in the buildings sector, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-148/13 Kingdom of Spain v Commission.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2000 in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
C 273/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.9.2000
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 28 June 2000
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         (Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                                Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/20)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           of 6 July 2000                                In Case T-191/98 R II: Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established
                                                                         in Seoul, South Korea, represented by N. Bromfield and
in Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS)               C. Thomas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    v European Parliament (1)                            Luxembourg at the chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae
                                                                         and Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — Application for suspension
(Public services contract — Passenger transport by chauf-                of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of
feur-driven vehicles — Invitation to tender — Compliance                 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
with national law — Principles of sound administration and               Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
of the duty to cooperate in good faith — Rejection of a                  Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1) in
                               tender)                                   so far as, in Article 8, it imposes a fine of EUR 13 750 000 on
                                                                         the applicant, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                         given an order on 28 June 2000, in which:
                          (2000/C 273/19)
                                                                         1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        2.   The applicant is given 15 days in which to lodge at the Registry
                                                                              a request for confidential treatment.
In Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS),              3.   Costs are reserved.
established in Strasbourg (France), represented by C. Imbach
and A. Dissler, of the Strasbourg Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
Béatrix de Bourbon, v European Parliament (agents: P. Runge
Nielsen and O. Caisou-Rousseau) — application, first, for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to accept the
tender submitted by the applicant in the context of invitation
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
to tender No 99/S 18-8765/FR relating to a contract for
                                                                                INSTANCE
passenger transport by chauffeur-driven vehicles during the
Parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg and, second, for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                                     of 28 June 2000
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and             in Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH v Commission of
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for                             the European Communities
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which
it:                                                                      (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of authorisation
                                                                         for medicinal products for human use which contain ‘amfe-
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              pramon’ — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing
                                                                                of interests)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the
      Parliament’s costs.                                                                          (2000/C 273/21)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH, established in Lüchow,
                                                                         Germany, represented by U. Doepner, Rechtsanwalt, Düssel-


title: Case C-120/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2010 — European Air Transport SA v Collège d'Environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2010 — European Air Transport SA v Collège d'Environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
   (Case C-120/10)
   2010/C 148/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Air Transport SA

      Defendants: Collège d'Environnement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the concept of ‘operating restriction’ in Article 2(e) of Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) be interpreted as including rules imposing limits on noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying territories located near the airport and providing that any person responsible for exceeding those limits may incur a penalty, it being understood that aircraft are required to keep to the designated routes and comply with the landing and take-off procedures laid down by other administrative authorities without taking account of the need to comply with those noise limitations?

               2.

               Must Articles 2(e) and 4(4) of Directive 2002/30 be interpreted as meaning that all ‘operating restrictions’ must be ‘performance-based’, or do those provisions allow other provisions, relating to environmental protection, to restrict access to the airport on the basis of the noise level, as measured on the ground, to be observed by aircraft overflying territories located near the airport, it being provided that any person responsible for exceeding that level may incur a penalty?

               3.

               Must Article 4(4) of Directive 2002/30 be interpreted as precluding the existence, in addition to performance-based operating restrictions based on the noise emitted by aircraft, of rules on environmental protection which impose limits on noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying territories located near the airport?

               4.

               Must Article 6(2) of Directive 2002/30 be interpreted as precluding rules which impose limits on noise levels, as measured on the ground, to be complied with by aircraft overflying territories located near the airport, and which provide that any person exceeding those limits may incur a penalty, where those rules are capable of being infringed by aircraft which comply with the standards in Volume 1, part II, chapter 4 of Annex 16 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40.


title: Case F-129/15: Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/44

         Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-129/15)
   (2015/C 414/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Jeannin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating the applicant’s retirement pension, the period of service equivalent to 26 days which was granted following the transfer of pension rights acquired in the national system to the EU pension scheme, and a claim for one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision rejecting his complaint and the implied decision, by the decision of 6 February 2015 on the granting and payment of his pension rights, not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating that pension, the period of 26 days acquired through the transfer of pension rights from the French retirement schemes known as CNAVTS-ARRCO and MSA;

               —

               award one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 3  500 by way of costs.


title: Case C-462/13: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Warner — Lambert Company LLC, Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Questions referred for a preliminary ruling identical to questions on which the Court has already ruled — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) — Article 27 — Patentable Subject Matter — Article 70 — Protection of Existing Subject Matter)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/20

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon — Greece) — Warner — Lambert Company LLC, Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE
   (Case C-462/13) (1)

   ((Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Questions referred for a preliminary ruling identical to questions on which the Court has already ruled - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) - Article 27 - Patentable Subject Matter - Article 70 - Protection of Existing Subject Matter))
   2014/C 175/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Warner — Lambert Company LLC, Pfizer Ellas AE

      Defendant: Minerva Farmakeftiki AE

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Polymeles Protodikeio Athens — Interpretation of Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’) annexed to the Agreement establishing the ‘World Trade Organization’ (OJ L 336, p. 214) — Distinction between areas of Community law and those within the competence of Member States — Patenting — chemicals and pharmceuticals

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights must be interpreted as meaning that the invention of a pharmaceutical product such as the active chemical compound of a medicinal product is, in the absence of a derogation in accordance with Article 27(2) or (3), capable of being the subject-matter of a patent, under the conditions set out in Article 27(1).

               2.

               A patent obtained following an application claiming the invention both of the process of manufacture of a pharmaceutical product and of the pharmaceutical product as such, but granted solely in relation to the process of manufacture, does not, by reason of the rules set out in Articles 27 and 70 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, have to be regarded from the entry into force of that agreement as covering the invention of that pharmaceutical product.

               3.

               Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), falls within the field of the common commercial policy.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.03.2014.


title: Case T-370/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Kuwait Petroleum and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Significant added value — Equal treatment — Rights of the defence)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Kuwait Petroleum and Others v Commission
   (Case T-370/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 355/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (Shuwaikh, Kuwait), Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd (Woking, United Kingdom) and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, and by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-212/07 REV: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Harman International Industries, Inc. v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/21

         Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Harman International Industries, Inc. v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker)
   (Case T-212/07 REV) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 399/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harman International Industries, Inc. (Northridge, California, United States) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Barbara Becker (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harman International Industries, Inc. and Barbara Becker.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98: Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Liner conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Block exemption — Individual exemption — Collective dominant position — Abuse — Service contracts — Accession to the conference — Alteration of the competition structure — Withdrawal of block exemption — Fines — Rights of the defence)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 7/29
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 23 October 2003                                                     of 30 September 2003
in Case T-65/98: Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission                      in Joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98:
               of the European Communities (1)                             Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Competition — Articles 85 and
86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Ice                   (Competition — Liner conferences — Regulation (EEC)
creams intended for immediate consumption — Supply of                      No 4056/86 — Block exemption — Individual exemption —
freezer cabinets to retailers — Exclusivity clause — Barriers              Collective dominant position — Abuse — Service contracts
to entry to the market — Property rights — Article 222 of                  — Accession to the conference — Alteration of the compe-
              the EC Treaty (now Article 295 EC))                          tition structure — Withdrawal of block exemption — Fines
                                                                                — Rights of the defence)
                           (2004/C 7/51)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/52)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-65/98, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice                  In Joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98: Atlantic
Cream Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by                 Container Line AB, established in Gothenburg (Sweden), Cho
M. Nicholson and M. Rowe, solicitors, with an address for                  Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul (South Korea),
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                        DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in Bremen (Germany),
Communities (Agents: W. Wils and A. Whelan), supported                     Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul (South Korea),
by Masterfoods Ltd, established in Dublin represented by                   Hapag-Lloyd AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), Hyundai
P.G.H. Collins, solicitor, and by Richmond Frozen Confection-              Merchant Marine Co. Ltd, established in Seoul (South Korea),
ery Ltd, formerly Treats Frozen Confectionery Ltd, established             A.P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen (Denmark),
in Northallerton (United Kingdom), represented by I.S. Forre-              Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA, established in Geneva (Switz-
ster, QC, with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appli-                erland), Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, established
cation for annulment of Commission Decision 98/531/EC of                   in London (United Kingdom), Polish Ocean Lines (POL),
11 March 1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and               established in Gdynia (Poland), P & O Nedlloyd BV, established
86 of the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/                 in London (United Kingdom), Sea-Land Service Inc., established
35.436 — Van den Bergh Foods Limited) (OJ 1989 L 246,                      in Jersey City, New Jersey (United States of America), Neptune
p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed               Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), Nippon
of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,              Yusen Kaisha, established in Tokyo (Japan), Transportación
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a         Marítima Mexicana SA de CV, established in Mexico City
judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:                                  (Mexico), Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico City
                                                                           (Mexico), represented by J. Pheasant, N. Bromfield, M. Levitt,
                                                                           D. Waelbroeck, U. Zinsmeister, A. Bentley, C. Thomas,
1.    Dismisses the application as unfounded.                              A. Nourry, M. Van Kerckhove, P. Ruttley and A. Merckx,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
2.    Orders Van den Bergh Foods Ltd to bear its own costs and to          mission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and
      pay those of the Commission, including the costs of the interim      J. Flynn), supported by European Council of Transport Users
      proceedings.                                                         ASBL, represented by M. Clough QC, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of
3.    Orders Masterfoods Ltd and Richmond Frozen Confectionery             Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998
      Ltd to bear their own costs.                                         relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the
                                                                           EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 — Trans-Atlantic Conference
                                                                           Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1), the Court of First Instance
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.07.1998.                                                (Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
                                                                           and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
                                                                           which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/30                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
1.    Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of                 (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R. Gar-
      16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                 cía-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi
      Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —               and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
      Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement).                                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which
                                                                             it:
2.    Annuls Article 6 of Decision 1999/243 in so far as it applies
      to mutual disclosure by the applicants of the availability and
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
      content of their individual service contracts.
3.    Annuls Article 7 of Decision 1999/243 to the extent required           2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
      by the annulment of Articles 5 and 6.                                        the Commission.
4.    Annuls Article 8 of Decision 1999/243.                                 3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear its own costs.
5.    Dismisses the remainder of the applications.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
6.    Orders the applicants and the Commission each to bear their
      own costs.
7.    Orders the European Council of Transport Users ASBL to bear
      its own costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 27.03.1999 and OJ C 86 of 13.03.1999.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 21 October 2003
                                                                             in Case T-368/00: General Motors Nederland BV and
                                                                             Opel Nederland BV v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Article 81
                        of 16 October 2003
                                                                             EC — Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95
                                                                             — Partitioning of the market — General strategy aimed at
in Case T-148/00: The Panhellenic Union of Cotton                            restricting exports — Restriction of supply — Restrictive
Ginners and Exporters v Commission of the European                           bonus policy — Ban on exports — Fine — Gravity and
                          Communities (1)                                    duration of the infringement — Proportionality — Guide-
                                                                                lines for the calculation of fines)
(State aid — Compensatory levy — Method of financing aid
— Community aid scheme for cotton — Action for annul-                                                   (2004/C 7/54)
ment — Admissibility — Acts which may be challenged —
Commission’s refusal to continue infringement proceedings
           — Principle of independent legal remedies)                                            (Language of the case: English)
                            (2004/C 7/53)
                                                                             In Case T-368/00, General Motors Nederland BV, established
                    (Language of the case: English)                          in Sliedrecht (Netherlands), Opel Nederland BV, established in
                                                                             Sliedrecht, represented by D. Vandermeersch, R. Snelders and
                                                                             S. Allcock, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-148/00, The Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners                    W. Mölls and A. Whelan): Application for, as the principal
and Exporters, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented             claim, annulment of the Commission’s decision 2001/146/EC
by K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akritidis and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert,                 of 20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                   Article 81 EC (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel) (OJ 2001 L 59,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou                       p. 1) or, in the alternative, cancellation or reduction of the fine
and D. Triantafyllou), supported by Hellenic Republic (Agents:               imposed on the applicants by that decision., the Court of First
I. Chalkias and C. Tsiavou): Application for the partial annul-              Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood,
ment of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of 20 July 1999                      President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
on an aid scheme applied in Greece to cotton by the Greek                    has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which it has
Cotton Board (OJ 2000 L 63, p. 27), the Court of First Instance              ruled:


title: Case C-6/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Cofradía de pescadores San Pedro de Bermeo and Others v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Principles of relative stability, legal certainty and legitimate expectations — Admissibility — Appeal in part unfounded and in part inadmissible — Cross appeal — Application to set aside part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance inasmuch as it holds that it is not necessary to rule on a plea of inadmissibility brought against an action which it dismissed as unfounded — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Res judicata )

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic
   (Case C-6/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Principles of relative stability, legal certainty and legitimate expectations - Admissibility - Appeal in part unfounded and in part inadmissible - Cross appeal - Application to set aside part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance inasmuch as it holds that it is not necessary to rule on a plea of inadmissibility brought against an action which it dismissed as unfounded - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Res judicata)
   (2008/C 64/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellants: Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents), Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández) and the French Republic
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council in which the Court dismissed the action for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following the Council's authorisation of the transfer to the French Republic of part of the quota for anchovy allocated to the Portuguese Republic
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the principal appeal, brought by Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross appeal brought by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and the other applicants, whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 19 October 2005 in Case T-415/03 Cofradía de pescadores ‘San Pedro’ de Bermeo and Others v Council, and the Council of the European Union, to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-45/08: Action brought on 29 January 2008 — Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/36

         Action brought on 29 January 2008 — Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission
   (Case T-45/08)
   (2008/C 92/73)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Transportes Evaristo Molina S.A. (Santa María del Águila, Spain) (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, L. Ruiz Ezquerra and M.C. Flores Hernández, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty COMP/B-1/38.348 Repsol CPP, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application was brought against the decision of the Commission of 12 April 2006 because it accepted the commitments proposed by REPSOL CPP in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) 1/2003 (1).
   That decision concerns the procedure initiated following the request by REPSOL CPP for negative clearance or, failing that, an individual exemption with respect to the standard agreements and/or contracts by means of which it carried out its fuel distribution activities for motor vehicles through service stations in Spain.
   In the offer of commitments accepted by the Commission, REPSOL CPP undertook, inter alia, to increase the annual number of service stations which may change supplier, for which it undertook to offer the bare owners/operators of the service stations the possibility of recovery of the right in rem to the usufruct or over the buildings subject, however, to compliance with a series of conditions by the operator.
   The applicant, the owner-operator of a service station which had concluded a supply contract with REPSOL CPP claims that since 19 November 2007, the date on which it received notification from the monitoring trustee of its inclusion in Annex I of REPSOL CPP's commitments, the contested decision directly and individually concerns it.
   In support of its claims, the applicant complains, first of all, that the Commission infringed Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission, although aware of the correct interpretation of the competition rules relating to time limits, accepted the commitments proposed by REPSOL CPP, going beyond and infringing the aim of Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. In addition, the applicant claims in that context that the contested decision infringes Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 and the principle of proportionality since the commitments accepted by the Commission were not effective to give an appropriate response to the concerns expressed by the applicant.
   Second, the applicant relies on infringement of the principle according to which persons subject to Community law may not benefit from their own unlawful acts or become enriched without just cause.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-67/03: Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 124/24              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.5.2003
Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Henkel KGaA                         Decision of the Board of       Mr. Brutsaert’s appeal allowed in
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                      Appeal:                        part. Application to register may
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                        proceed also in respect of the
                                                                                goods ‘cleaning, polishing, scour-
                                                                                ing and abrasive preparation’ in
                         (Case T-67/03)                                                                  Class 3. Mr. Brutsaert’s appeal
                                                                                dismissed for the remainder;
                                                                                Opponent’s appeal dismissed.
                        (2003/C 124/42)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                  —     misapplication of Arti-
                  (Language of the case: English)                                                              cle 43(2) and (3) of Regu-
                                                                                lation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                cant challenges the Board of
                                                                                Appeal’s findings in relation
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                 to the issue of using and thus
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                     maintaining entitlement to
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                     the national mark ‘CIDE’.
27 February 2003 by Henkel KgaA, Düsseldorf, Germany,
represented by Dr C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an address for                                             —     misapplication of Arti-
service in Luxembourg. Koen Brutsaert was also a party to the                                                  cle 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.                                                                        94. The applicant challenges
                                                                                the Board of Appeal’s find-
                                                                                ings regarding the issue of
                                                                                similarity of goods.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      OHIM of 17 December 2002 in the appeal proceedings                  (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
      No R 940/2001-1;                                                         Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            Koen Brutsaert
munity trade mark:
                                                                          Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Bernard Zaoui,
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘Professional               Lucien Zaoui and Déborah Stain, née Zaoui against the
sought:                       Hygiene CID lines’ for certain                       Commission of the European Communities
                              goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (appli-
                              cation No 506618)
                                                                                (Case T-73/03)
Proprietor of mark or         Henkel KGaA
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                                                (2003/C 124/43)
Mark or sign cited in         National marks ‘CIDE’ (for certain
opposition:                   goods in classes 1 and 5) and ‘CID’                            (Language of the case: French)
                              (in respect of certain goods in
                              Classes 1 and 3.
Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition upheld for part of the
sition Division:              contested goods, namely ‘bleach-
                              ing preparations and other sub-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                              stances for laundry use; cleaning,          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                              polishing, scouring and abrasive            European Communities on 26 February 2003 by Bernard
                              preparation’ (Class 3). The appli-          Zaoui, residing in Combs-la-Ville (France), Lucien Zaoui,
                              cation for registration may pro-            residing in Netanya (Israel), and Déborah Stain, née Zaoui,
                              ceed for the remaining goods of             residing in Ramat Gan (Israel), represented by Jean Alex
                              the application.                            Buchinger, lawyer.


title: Case C-249/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Novo Nordisk AS v Ravimiamet (Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Advertising — Medical journal — Information not included in the summary of product characteristics)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Novo Nordisk AS v Ravimiamet
   (Case C-249/09) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Advertising - Medical journal - Information not included in the summary of product characteristics)
   2011/C 186/02
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novo Nordisk AS

      Defendant: Ravimiamet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Advertisements for medicinal products published in a medical journal and directed to persons qualified to prescribe medicines — Whether information not limited to that contained in the summary of product characteristics may be included in such advertisements

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as extending also to quotations taken from medical journals or other scientific works which are included in advertisements for medicinal products directed at persons qualified to prescribe or supply medicines;

               2.

               Article 87(2) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, must be interpreted as prohibiting the publication in advertising medicinal products directed at persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, of claims which conflict with the summary of product characteristics, but it does not require that all the claims in such advertisements are included in that summary or can be derived from it. Such advertisements may include claims supplementing the information referred to in Article 11 of that directive, provided that those claims:

                           —

                           confirm or clarify — and are compatible with — that information, and do not distort it, and

                           —

                           are consistent with the requirements of Articles 87(3) and 92(2) and (3) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-190/14: Action brought on 16 April 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/4

         Action brought on 16 April 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-190/14)
   2014/C 223/05
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 and by failing to send a copy thereof to the Commission by 22 March 2010 and, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy; (1)

               —

               order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Denmark has repeatedly acknowledged — most recently by reply of 18 December 2013 to the Commission’s supplementary reasoned opinion — that none of Denmark’s four river basin districts are currently covered by a river basin management plan, and that a copy of the final river basin management plans for the six-year period ending 22 December 2015 has not been sent to the Commission.
   The Commission finds that Denmark has still not complied with Article 13(1), (2) and (6) of the Directive. According to Denmark’s reply of 8 May 2013, the infringement of Article 13 of the Directive may be expected to continue until May 2014 (approximately 3,5 years after the prescribed time limit). Furthermore, it is the Commission’s view that Denmark has still not complied with the requirements of Article 15(1) of the Directive, under which the time limit for informing the Commission was set at 22 March 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case C-307/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of Oliehandel Koeweit B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

text:
25.11.2000            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/25
    The Netherlands Government disputes the validity of the           —     Breach of principle of legal certainty
    objections of a financial and administrative nature raised
    by the Commission and points out that the Commission                    In the absence of a relevant Community definition, the
    bases its arguments on out-of-date (and superseded)                     meaning of the term ‘adequate compensation’ as referred
    reporting and data.                                                     to in the seventh indent of Article 3(2) of Decision
                                                                            90/424/EEC is left to the discretion of the Member
                                                                            States. They must determine, in the light of the relevant
—   Misapplication of the law:                                              legislation (in this case Directive 80/217/EEC and
                                                                            Decision 90/424/EEC), what is adequate compensation.
                                                                            The Commission now assigns a meaning all of its own to
    Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the
                                                                            the term ‘adequate compensation’, which cannot be
    veterinary field (2) makes no provision for the application
                                                                            inferred from existing Community legislation. The Com-
    of a general reduction. When classic swine fever occurs
                                                                            mission has thus acted in breach of the principle of legal
    in a Member State, that Member State is eligible under
                                                                            certainty which requires that legal rules be clear and their
    Article 3(2) of Decision 90/424 for a financial contri-
                                                                            application foreseeable for those affected by them.
    bution from the Community for the eradication of the
    disease. The right to a contribution of 50 % arises in
    respect of measures referred to in Article 3(5) of Decision       —     Breach of the requirement to state reasons.
    90/424/EEC. The conditions referred to in Article 3(2) of
    Decision 90/424/EEC were complied with in controlling
    the swine fever epidemic. In so far as the Commission             (1) OJ 2000 L 129, p. 33.
    is of the opinion that technical and administrative               (2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 19.
    shortcomings were discovered subsequently in the
    Netherlands, the Netherlands takes the view that, since
    they were inevitable, such shortcomings should not lead
    to a reduction. Perhaps the reduction was intended to
    have a remedial effect and was used by the Commission
    as an instrument for putting the level of compensation
    paid in the Netherlands on a par with that paid in other
    countries. If that is the case, the Commission has failed to
    take account of the need to recognize the specific
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
    circumstances in each Member State, such as the structure
                                                                      Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
    of pig farming, the density of the pig population in the
                                                                      Oliehandel Koeweit B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvest-
    affected area, as well as of economic and cyclical vari-
                                                                               ing, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
    ations in price levels between and with respect to other
    EU Member States during previous outbreaks of classical
    swine fever, and has overlooked the fact that the situation                                (Case C-307/00)
    in the other Member States was completely different from
    that in the Netherlands as regards the extent and duration
    of the crisis.                                                                             (2000/C 335/46)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    In so far as the Commission intended to impose a penalty
                                                                      European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
    on the Netherlands, that is wrong because there is in any
                                                                      Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
    case no legal basis for it.
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Oliehandel Koeweit B.V.
—   Breach of the principle of proportionality                        and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en
                                                                      Milieubeheer on the following questions:
    The Netherlands Government is of the opinion that there           1.    Do Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the
    is a major imbalance between, on the one hand, the                      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-
    deficiencies found (or described as such) by the Com-                   ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and Directive 87/101/EEC (2) of
    mission in the implementation of the measures taken to                  22 December 1986 amending Directive 75/439/EEC on
    control classical swine fever and, on the other hand, the               the disposal of waste oils mean that Regulation (EEC)
    financial correction applied by the Commission. The                     No 259/93 (3) of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
    Commission wrongly uses the data collected by it on the                 control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
    basis of a small and, in the opinion of the Netherlands                 European       Community       (hereinafter:    ‘Regulation
    Government, unrepresentative spot check as the basis for                No 259/93’) must be interpreted as meaning that the
    conclusions about the handling of the whole operation                   shipment of waste oil with a PCB content of over 50 ppm
    to control classical swine fever in 1997. The Netherlands               must always be regarded as a shipment of waste for
    Government is further of the opinion that comparison                    disposal within the meaning of Title II, Chapter A, of
    with the guidelines operated for the imposition of                      Regulation No 259/93, read in conjunction with Art-
    reductions in the EAGGF context supports the view of the                icle 1(e) of Directive 75/442/EEC (4) of 15 July 1975 on
    Netherlands that the 25 % reduction is disproportionate.                waste (hereinafter: ‘the Framework Directive’)?
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/26                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
2.a) If the first question must be answered in the affirmative          2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned
      and therefore the shipment of waste oil with a PCB                     questions that an operation such as the processing of fly
      content of over 50 ppm must always be regarded as a                    ash does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of
      shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection be                    operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework
      raised to the shipment pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of               Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,
      Regulation No 259/93 solely on account of the need to                  and if so which one?
      achieve self-sufficiency at national level without showing
      that self-sufficiency at national level is necessary to           3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
      achieve self-sufficiency at Community level?                           an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery
                                                                             within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
2.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such            Directive?
      a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
      principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible       3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
      with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European                operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
      Community?                                                             given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
                                                                             that operation or does neither of the two lists take
                                                                             precedence over the other?
( 1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
( 2) OJ 1987, L 42, p. 43.
                                                                        4.   Must the view of the competent authority of the Member
( 3) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
( 4) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                                   State of dispatch or of the Member State of destination
                                                                             be regarded as decisive as regards whether an operation
                                                                             must be classified as disposal or recovery?
                                                                        5.a) If the shipment of the fly ash must be regarded as a
                                                                             shipment of waste for disposal, can an objection to
                                                                             the shipment be raised pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of 1 February 1993 on
                                                                             the supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                             into and out of the European Community solely on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
                                                                             account of the need to achieve self-sufficiency at national
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
                                                                             level without showing that self-sufficiency at national
N.V. Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sond-
                                                                             level is necessary to achieve self-sufficiency at Community
ershausen Entwicklungs- und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                             level?
and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
                          en Milieubeheer
                                                                        5.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such
                                                                             a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
                          (Case C-308/00)                                    principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
                                                                             with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                             Community?
                          (2000/C 335/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) OJ 1975, L 194, p. 39.
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the                   (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of N.V. Slibverwerking
Noord-Brabant and Glückauf Sondershausen Entwicklungs-
und Sicherungsgesellschaft mbH and Minister van Volkshuis-
vesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on the follow-
ing questions:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-
                                                                        Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case
      ganic materials, referred to under R5 of Annex II B
                                                                        of PPG Industries Fiber Glass B.V. and Minister van
      to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the            Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
      Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-
      use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-
      work Directive?                                                                            (Case C-309/00)
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the                                   (2000/C 335/48)
      above question? For the operation referred to therein to
      exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a
      treatment, can be used several times or can be taken              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      back?                                                             European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the


title: Case T-66/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v European Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/51

         Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v European Commission
   (Case T-66/10)
   2010/C 113/82
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG (Jülich, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Prieß and B. Sachs, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward six pleas in law in support of its action.
   First, the applicant pleads an infringement of Article 233 EC (Article 266 TFEU) by analogy, because the Commission has not given effect to the requirements of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-5/06 and C-23/06 to C-36/06 Zuckerfabrik Jülich and Others [2008] ECR I-3231. In that judgment the Court explained how the parameters of the “exportable surplus” and the “total tonnage of export obligations to be fulfilled” are to be determined in the calculation of the production levies for the marketing years 2002/2003 to 2005/2006. The applicant submits that in the contested regulation the Commission also altered the third parameter, “total amount of refunds”, even though this was not the subject matter of Joined Cases C-5/06 etc.
   Second, the Commission infringed Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 (1) and the spirit and purpose of that regulation. It submits, inter alia, that when calculating the total amount of refunds the Commission included refunds for exports which had not been claimed and paid. Moreover, the flat-rate approach of monthly exports leads to inaccuracies in the calculation. In Joined Cases C-5/06 etc the Court prohibited the total loss from being set at an amount higher than expenditure for the refunds.
   Third, the Commission infringed the principle prohibiting retroactive effects, as the contested regulation altered the total amount of refunds retroactively.
   Fourth, when the Commission adopted a production levy regulation for the 2002/2003 to 2005/2006 marketing years on 3 November 2009, it no longer had power to do so, because Regulation No 1260/2001, which the Commission indicated as the legal basis, was no longer in force when the Regulation was adopted, there was no other legal basis under secondary law and, according to the relevant rules of the EC Treaty, it was the Council and not the Commission which had such power.
   Fifth, there was an infringement of Article 37(2) EC, because on the basis of that provision a different procedure should have been chosen for the adoption of the Regulation.
   Finally, the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC (Article 296, second paragraph, TFEU), as the reason given by the Commission for the contested regulation is that it implements the judgment in Joined Cases C-5/06 etc, but, in the applicant’s view, that decision goes beyond the requirements of that judgment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1).


title: Case C-91/04: Action brought on 25 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/27

         Action brought on 25 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-91/04)
   (2004/C 94/59)
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Banks and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2001/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and

               2.

               order Sweden to pay the costs of the case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive was to be implemented expired on 22 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 September 1995 in Case T-381/94: Sindacato Pensionati Italiani and Others v. Council of the European Union (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social Committee - Manifest inadmissibility - Application to intervene)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315/ 15
and also, in the oral procedure, by Harold Nyssens of the             1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  inadmissible.
the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                   2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992 , 31 December              f 1 ) OJ No C 23 , 31 . 1 . 1990 .
1992 ( implicit rejection ) and 3 March 1993 concerning the
maintenance of the applicant's personal file and certain
measures taken to assist him, and for an order requiring the
Commission to pay damages for the harm which the
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the existence
of a separate file — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R.
                                                                                of 29 September 1995
Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 1995 , in               in Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani and Others
which it :                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( J )
                                                                       (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
1 . Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992              Committee — Manifest inadmissibility — Application to
     and 3 March 1993 inasmuch as they reject the                                                        intervene)
     applicant 's request for the inclusion in his personal file                                    ( 95/C 315/33 )
      of certain documents relating to his administrative
     position and reports concerning his ability, efficiency or
      conduct.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of             In Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani,
      Bfrs 1 00 000 as compensation for the non-material              Federazione nazionale Pensionati , Unione Italiana
      damage suffered by him .                                        Lavoratori Pensionati , represented by Massimo Severo
                                                                       Giannini and Massimo d'Antona, of the Rome Bar, and
                                                                      Mario Chiti, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service
3 . Dismisses the remainder of the action .
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                       Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
4 . Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.                     ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio Tanca ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Council Decision
 (•) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 and OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .       94/660/EC, Euratom of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       1 994 L 257, p. 20 ) in so far as it appoints Filippo de Jorio —
                                                                       the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio,
                                                                      Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 September
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                       of 5 October 1995
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
 in Case T-165 /89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of
                          (Interpretation)                                   the defendants.
                           ( 95/C 315/32 )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                 (Language of the case: French)
 In Case T-165/89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug, a former member of the
 temporary staff of the Commission of the European
  Communities ,      residing     at   Thonex      ( Switzerland ),     Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Adriaan A1 and
 represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,              Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                     ( Case T-171 /95 )
  the European Communities ( Agent: Sean Van                                                          ( 95/C 315 /34 )
  Raepenbusch ) — application for interpretation of the
  judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth                             (Language of the case: French)
  Chamber ) on 27 February 1992 in Case T-165/89 (( 1992 )
  ECR 11-367 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
  Chamber ) made an order on 5 October 1995 , the operative             An action against the Commission of the European
  part of which is as follows :                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-339/99: Action brought on 26 November 1999 by V.O.F. Achten against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/29
Action brought on 26 November 1999 by V.O.F. Achten                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision refusing to annul, on
                                                                             account of sickness, the annual leave taken by the applicant
                        (Case T-339/99)                                      from 4 August 1988 to 1 September 1988;
                         (2000/C 63/57)                                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         The applicant contests the Commission’s decision refusing to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                allow him to recoup all of the days of leave corresponding to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the period covered by the medical certificates produced by
European Communities on 26 November 1999 by                              him to prove that he was absent on account of sickness whilst
V.O.F. Achten, of Arcen (Netherlands), represented by                    he was on leave.
M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
                                                                         He asserts, first, that the Commission challenged the medical
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              certificates produced without undertaking a medical examin-
                                                                         ation to check the validity of each of them, thereby disregarding
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)             the provisions of Article 59(1) and (3) of the Staff Regulations
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                  of officials.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;                                                             He further considers that the Commission has failed to comply
                                                                         with its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and to
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               observe the principle of the right to a fair hearing, inasmuch
                                                                         as it has provided no medical information enabling the
                                                                         applicant or his doctor to understand and, where appropriate,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          to rebut the reasons which prompted the institution’s medical
                                                                         officer to challenge the certificate of 4 August 1998, which
                                                                         was the only one in respect of which a medical examination
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases             was carried out to check its validity.
T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 December 1999 by Harbinger
                                                                         Corporation against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-345/99)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Francisco Javier
Rémon Galar against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (2000/C 63/59)
                          Communities
                        (Case T-341/99)                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                         (2000/C 63/58)                                  An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                         Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 2 December 1999 by
                                                                         Harbinger Corporation, a corporation having its registered
                   (Language of the case: French)                        office in the USA, represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Clau-
                                                                         de Mitchell, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 avenue Marie-Thérèse.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 December 1999 by Francisco                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Javier Rémon Galar, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                — reverse the Board of Appeal’s decision in that it concluded
Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   that the trade mark did not comply with the provisions of
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4              Article 7, paragraph 1, subparagraph b of Regulation
Rue Beck.                                                                    No 40/94;


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2000 in Case C-222/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Groningen): Hendrik van der Woude v Stichting Beatrixoord (Agreements and dominant position — Collective agreement — Contribution to workers' sickness insurance)

text:
25.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 335/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 19 September 2000
                                                                                of 21 September 2000
in Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99 (references for
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif,
(Administrative Court) Nantes (C-177/99) and Melun
(181/99): Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux                   in Case C-222/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
de Maine-et-Loire (C-177/99) and Sanofi Synthelabo, for-                   from the Kantongerecht te Groningen): Hendrik van der
merly Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services                                         Woude v Stichting Beatrixoord (1)
            Fiscaux du Val-de-Marne (C-181/99) (1)
(VAT — Deduction of tax — Exclusion of the right of                        (Agreements and dominant position — Collective agreement
    deduction — Entertainment costs — Proportionality)                            — Contribution to workers’ sickness insurance)
                           (2000/C 335/12)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/13)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99: references to the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                                     in the European Court Reports)
EC) from the Tribunal Administratif, Nantes (C-177/99) and
Melun (181/99) (France), for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Ampafrance                 In Case C-222/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Kantongerecht te
(C-177/99) and Sanofi Synthelabo, formerly Sanofi Winthrop                 Groningen (Cartonal Court, Groningen), Netherlands, for a
SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Val-de-Marne                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
(C-181/99) — on the interpretation on the validity of Council              between Hendrik van der Woude and Stichting Beatrixoord on
Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the French                 the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second                     Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive                       composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President
77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges;
States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 1989 L 239, p. 21) — the             N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O Edward, President                Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 Sep-
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm                    tember 2000, in which it has ruled:
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it has
ruled:                                                                     The provisions of a collective labour agreement which relate to the
                                                                           sickness insurance of employees covered by the agreement and under
                                                                           which employer contributions may be paid only in respect of insurance
Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the                taken out with insurer(s) selected in the context of implementing the
French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second              agreement are compatible with Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC            (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC).
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes is invalid.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999; OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Case F-118/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014  — Strack v Commission

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 April 2014 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-118/07) (1)

   2014/C 159/55
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, 49.


title: Case T-358/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014  — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/44

         Action brought on 23 May 2014 — Hoteles Catalonia v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya (HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA)
   (Case T-358/14)
   2014/C 253/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hoteles Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Torrente Tomás and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 1227/2013-1 rejecting Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ by HOTELES CATALONIA S.A., which will consequently have to be registered by OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hoteles Catalonia, SA

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘HOTEL CATALONIA LA PEDRERA’ for services in Class 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 63  814

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Caixa d'Estalvis de Catalunya

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘LA PEDRERA’ for services in class 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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