title: Case T-295/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Zhang v OHIM — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/34

         Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Zhang v OHIM — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)
   (Case T-295/15)
   (2015/C 262/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yongyu Zhang (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Steinert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Yongyu Zhang

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Anna Smith’ — Registration No 11 981 446

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2015 in Case R 1559/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit, after annulment of the contested decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 2 264 227 on the application for registration No 11 981 446 of 12 July 2013, the word mark Anna Smith as a Community trade mark for Classes 18 and 25, as per the application.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-386/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA (Rules of procedure — Articles 92(1) and 104(3) — Community competition rules — National rules concerning lawyers' fees — Setting of professional scales of charges — Partial inadmissibility — Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/17

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
   (Case C-386/07) (1)

   (Rules of procedure - Articles 92(1) and 104(3) - Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers' fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Partial inadmissibility - Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court)
   (2008/C 209/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties

      Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA

      Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
   Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria locale ULSS No 15 (Alta Padovana, Regione Veneto, Italy)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Fixing by a national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs for lawyers' services subject to ministerial approval — National rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating from the set minimum fees
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees.

               2.

               The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of 13 January 2006 is clearly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-223/10: Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-223/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/73
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-74/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mecafer v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain compressors originating in China — Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid — Determination of the export price — Deduction of anti-dumping duties — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Mecafer v Commission
   (Case T-74/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of certain compressors originating in China - Partial refusal to refund the anti-dumping duties paid - Determination of the export price - Deduction of anti-dumping duties - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2016/C 007/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mecafer (Valence, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik, K. Talabér-Ritz and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China, and, in the event that the General Court should annul that decision, for the maintenance in force of the effects of that decision until the Commission has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court in this case.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8804 final of 6 December 2011 concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China in so far as that article does not grant Mecafer SA a refund of the anti-dumping duties unduly paid beyond the amounts referred to therein;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 October 1999 in Case C-6/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart): Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v PRO Sieben Media AG (Television broadcasting — Limitation on transmission time allocated to advertising)

text:
C 34/4                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ 1994                      were concluded before 6 February 1996 but which on 7 March
L 254, p. 64), alternatively by failing to ensure the introduction           1996 had still not been performed or could reasonably have
by management and labour of the required provisions by                       been cancelled, has failed to fulfil its obligations under
way of agreement, and thus by failing to take and/or to                      Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
communicate to the Commission the measures required to                       coordination of procedures for the award of public works
guarantee the results to be achieved under that directive, the               contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and Council Directive
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations               89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the
under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,                application of review procedures to the award of public supply
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,                   and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) as well as
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
on 21 October 1999, in which it:                                             Article 28 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                             Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and          and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rappor-
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council               teur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann. and M. Wathelet,
    Directive 94/45/EC of 22 December 1994 on the establishment              Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
    of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
    undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for              on 28 October 1999, in which it has ruled that:
    the purposes of informing and consulting employees, alternatively
    by failing to ensure the introduction by management and labour           1. In connection with the building at Sankt Pöllten of the new
    of the required provisions by way of agreement, and thus by                  administrative and cultural centre for the Land of Lower Austria,
    failing to take the measures required to guarantee the results to            the Republic of Austria, in awarding the contracts which were
    be achieved under the Directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg               concluded before 6 February 1996 but which on 7 March 1996
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                   had still not been performed or could reasonably have been
                                                                                cancelled, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                        Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordi-
                                                                                nation of procedures for the award of public works contracts,
                                                                                under Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                        the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the
                                                                                award of public supply and the public works contracts and under
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
                                                                                EC);
                                                                             2. The Republic of Austria is ordered to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                         of 28 October 1999
in Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public                                         (Sixth Chamber)
works contracts — Admissibility — Compatibility with
Community law of conditions governing invitations to tender                                         of 28 October 1999
— Failure to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal
                  of the European Communities)                               in Case C-6/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart): Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                             (2000/C 34/07)                                  Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v PRO Sieben Media
                                                                                AG(1)
                    (Language of the case: German)                           (Television broadcasting — Limitation on transmission time
                                                                                allocated to advertising)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2000/C 34/08)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and C. Schmidt) v Republic of Austria                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: W. Okresek) — application for a declaration that in                                     in the European Court Reports)
connection with the building at Sankt Pölten of a new
administrative and cultural centre for the Land of Lower                     In Case C-6/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Austria the Republic of Austria, in awarding contracts which                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberlandesgericht
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 34/5
Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court, Stuttgart), Germany, for a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten
(ARD) and PRO Sieben Media AG, supported by SAT 1                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
Satellitenfernsehen GmbH, Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH —
on the interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive
89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain                                          of 28 October 1999
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the                     in Case C-55/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — the Court                     the Højesteret): Skatteministeriet v Bent Vestergaard (1)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                        (Freedom to provide services — Income tax — Taxable
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-                income — Deduction of expenses for professional training
trar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October                  courses — Distinction according to the location of the
1999, in which it has ruled:                                                                                courses)
1. Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October                                           (2000/C 34/09)
     1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
     law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
     concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as
     amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament                                    (Language of the case: Danish)
     and of the Council of 30 June 1997, is to be construed as
     prescribing the gross principle, so that, in order to calculate the
     45-minute period for the purpose of determining the number of
     advertising interruptions allowed in the broadcasting of audiovis-
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     ual works such as feature films and films made for television, the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
     duration of the advertisements must be included in that period.
2. Article 11(3), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive             In Case C-55/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     89/552, as amended, authorises Member States to prescribe, for          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Højesteret
     television broadcasters under their jurisdiction, the net principle     (Supreme Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
     for advertisements which may be inserted during programmes,             proceedings pending before that court between Skatteministe-
     and thus to provide that, in order to calculate that period, the        riet and Bent Vestergaard — on the interpretation of Articles 6
     duration of the advertisements must be excluded, on condition,          and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
     however, that those rules are compatible with other relevant            EC and 49 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
     provisions of Community law.                                            R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                             acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn
                                                                             and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
     Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Articles 6 and          Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
     30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and           judgment on 28 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
     28 EC), Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and
     the general principle of equal treatment do not apply to national
     rules which prescribe the application of the net principle for          Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
     television broadcasters under their jurisdiction.                       precludes a Member State from having rules which, for the purposes
                                                                             of determining taxable income, presume that professional training
                                                                             courses held in ordinary tourist resorts located in other Member States
     Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49           involve such a significant tourism element that the costs of taking
     EC) does not preclude a Member State from prescribing, under            part in those courses cannot be treated as deductible operating costs,
     Article 3(1) of Directive 89/552, the application of the net            while such a presumption does not exist in the case of professional
     principle.                                                              training courses held in ordinary tourist resorts located within the
                                                                             territory of that Member State.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.


title: Case T-306/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Silicium España Laboratorios v OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ‘LLRG5’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Bad faith on the part of the Community trade mark proprietor — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Silicium España Laboratorios v OHIM — LLR-G5 (LLRG5)
   (Case T-306/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ‘LLRG5’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith on the part of the Community trade mark proprietor - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Silicium España Laboratorios, SL (Tarragona, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: LLR-G5 Ltd (Castlebar, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (case R 383/2012-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between LLR-G5 Ltd and Silicium España Laboratorios, SL.

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Silicium España Laboratorios, SL, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case T-86/10: Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — British Sugar v Commission (Agriculture — Sugar — Production levies — Annulment and declaration of invalidity in part of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after bringing of the action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/42

         Order of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — British Sugar v Commission
   (Case T-86/10) (1)

   (Agriculture - Sugar - Production levies - Annulment and declaration of invalidity in part of Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 after bringing of the action - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 156/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: British Sugar plc (London (United Kingdom)) (represented by: initially by K. Lasok QC, G. Facenna, Barrister, W. Robinson, P. Doris and D. Das, Solicitors, then by K. Lasok QC, G. Facenna, W. Robinson and D. Das)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by F. Díez Moreno, then by A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado); and Republic of Lithuania (represented by: R. Janeckaitė and R. Krasuckaitė, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Drēviņa and K. Krasovska, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and S. Hathaway, and then by Behzadi-Spencer and A. Robinson, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of 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 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of British Sugar plc.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-409/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal)) — José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles — Conditions for limitation — Victim’s contribution to his own loss or injury — Liability for risk — Provisions applicable to a child third party who is the victim of an accident)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal)) — José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA
   (Case C-409/09) (1)

   (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC - Right to compensation by means of compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Conditions for limitation - Victim’s contribution to his own loss or injury - Liability for risk - Provisions applicable to a child third party who is the victim of an accident)
   2011/C 226/06
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: José Maria Ambrósio Lavrador, Maria Cândida Olival Ferreira Bonifácio

      Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Interpretation of Article 1 of the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — Extent of compulsory third party insurance cover — Provisions applicable to third party victims of an accident who are minors

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
   Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, must be interpreted as not precluding national provisions falling within civil liability law that allow exclusion or limitation of the right of the victim of an accident to claim compensation under the civil liability insurance of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, on the basis of an individual assessment of the exclusive or partial contribution of that victim to his own loss or injury.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-369/02: Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
8.3.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 55/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September                Community trade mark          Word mark ‘SnMIX’ — Appli-
      2002 in the appeal procedure R 337/2001-1;                         applied for:                  cation No 1422294
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Goods or services:            Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                                                                                allic semi-finished products in the
                                                                                form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,
                                                                                sections and rods)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                         Board of Appeal:              examiner
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘SnPUR’ — Appli-
applied for:                  cation No 1421775                          Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
Goods or services:            Goods in Class 6 (inter alia, met-
                              allic semi-finished products in the        Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement                of
                              form of sheets, trips, wires, tubes,                                           Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
                              sections and rods)                                                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                since the mark is not descrip-
Decision before        the    Refusal of registration by the                                                 tive.
Board of Appeal:              examiner
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of           Action brought on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
                                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94             Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG and
                                    since the mark is not descrip-       six other undertakings against the Commission of the
                                    tive.                                                   European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-370/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/80)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke
AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-369/02)                                  European Communities on 12 December 2002 by Alpenhain-
                                                                         Camembert-Werk Gottfried Hain GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                         in Lehen/Pfaffing (Germany), Bayerland eG, established in
                         (2003/C 55/79)                                  Nuremberg (Germany), Bergpracht-Milchwerk GmbH & Co,
                                                                         established in Tettnang (Germany), Hochland AG, established
                  (Language of the case: German)                         in Heimenkirch (Germany), Käserei Champignon Hofmeister
                                                                         GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lauben (Germany), Milchwerk
                                                                         Crailsheim-Dinkelsbühl eG, established in Crailsheim (Germ-
                                                                         any) and Rücker GmbH, established in Aurich (Germany),
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           represented by J. Salzwedel and M.J. Werner, lawyers, with an
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  address for service in Luxembourg.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 December 2002 by Wieland-Werke AG, Ulm (Germany),                      The applicants claim that the Court should:
represented by S. Gruber and F. Graf von Stosch, lawyers.
                                                                         —     annul the inclusion, pursuant to Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the
                                                                               name ‘Feta’, of the name ‘Feta’ (PDO) as a protected
—     annul the decision of the defendant of 25 September                      designation of origin (PDO) in the register of protected
      2002 in the appeal procedure R 335/2001-1;                               designations of origin;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-206/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2008 — Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware v Council (Anti-dumping — Importation of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine — Undertaking with market economy status — Rights of the defence — Articles 2(7)(c) and 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 January 2008 — Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware v Council
   (Case T-206/07) (1)

   (Anti-dumping - Importation of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine - Undertaking with market economy status - Rights of the defence - Articles 2(7)(c) and 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
   (2008/C 64/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd (Foshan, China) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, avocat and G. Vallera, barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hixs, Agent assisted initially by B. O'Connor, solicitor and P. Vergano, avocat, and subsequently by B. O'Connor, solicitor, and E. McGovern, barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ricz, Agents); Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd (Rochdale, United Kingdom); Pirola SpA (Mapello, Italy); Colombo New Scal SpA (Rovagnate, Italy) (represented by: G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, avocats); and the Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent assisted by W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (OJ 2007 L 109, p. 12) inasmuch as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards produced by the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council, Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd, Pirola SpA and Colmbo New Scal SpA;

               3.

               Orders the Commission and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-175/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Aydin Salahadin Abdulla v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Aydin Salahadin Abdulla v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-175/08)
   (2008/C 197/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aydin Salahadin Abdulla

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 also require that, in the country of the refugee's nationality,

                           (a)

                           an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in that regard if protection can be assured only with the help of multinational troops,

                           (b)

                           the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83, which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

                           (c)

                           the security situation be stable and the general living conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

               3.

               In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances founding persecution to be

                           (a)

                           measured against the standard of probability applied for recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

                           (b)

                           assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Case C-616/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Solvay S.A. v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe B.V. Honeywell Belgium N.V. Honeywell Europe N.V.

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 29 December 2010 — Solvay S.A. v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe B.V. Honeywell Belgium N.V. Honeywell Europe N.V.
   (Case C-616/10)
   2011/C 89/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Solvay S.A.

      Defendants: Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               In a situation where two or more companies from different Member States, in proceedings pending before a court of one of those Member States, are each separately accused of committing an infringement of the same national part of a European patent which is in force in yet another Member State by virtue of their performance of reserved actions with regard to the same product, does the possibility arise of ‘irreconcilable judgments’ resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in Article 6(1) of the Regulation? (1)

               2.

               Is Article 22(4) of the Regulation applicable in proceedings seeking provisional relief on the basis of a foreign patent (such as a provisional cross-border prohibition against infringement), if the defendant argues by way of defence that the patent invoked is invalid, taking into account that the court in that case does not make a final decision on the validity of the patent invoked but makes an assessment as to how the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) of the Regulation would rule in that regard, and that the application for interim relief in the form of a prohibition against infringement shall be refused if, in the opinion of the court, a reasonable, non-negligible possibility exists that the patent invoked would be declared invalid by the competent court?

               3.

               In order for Article 22(4) of the Regulation to be applicable in proceedings such as those referred to in the preceding question, must the defence of invalidity be subject to procedural requirements in the sense that Article 22(4) of the Regulation is only applicable if invalidity proceedings before the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) of the Regulation are already pending or are to be commenced — within a period to be laid down by the court — or at least that a summons in that regard has been or is being issued to the patent holder, or does it suffice if a defence of invalidity is merely raised and, if so, are requirements then laid down in respect of the content of the defence put forward, in the sense that it must be sufficiently substantiated and/or that the conduct of the defence must not be deemed to be an abuse of procedural law?

               4.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the court, after a defence of invalidity has been raised in proceedings such as those referred to in question 1, retain jurisdiction in respect of the infringement action with the result that (if the claimant so desires) the infringement proceedings must be stayed until the court having jurisdiction under Article 22(4) of the Regulation has given a decision on the validity of the national part of the patent invoked, or that the claim must be refused because a defence that is essential to the decision may not be adjudicated, or does the court also lose its jurisdiction in respect of the infringement claim once a defence of invalidity has been raised?

               5.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can Article 31 of the Regulation confer on the national court jurisdiction to adjudicate on a claim seeking provisional relief on the basis of a foreign patent (such as a cross-border prohibition against infringement), and against which it is argued by way of defence that the patent invoked is invalid, or (should it be decided that the applicability of Article 22(4) of the Regulation does not affect the jurisdiction of the Rechtbank to adjudicate on the infringement question) jurisdiction to adjudicate on a defence claiming that the foreign patent invoked is invalid?

               6.

               If question 4 is answered in the affirmative, what facts or circumstances are then required in order to be able to accept that there is a real connecting link, as referred to in paragraph 40 of the Van Uden v Deco Line judgment, (2) between the subject matter of the measures sought and the territorial jurisdiction of the Contracting State of the court before which those measures are sought?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

      (2)  Judgment in Case C-391/95 Van Uden [1998] ECR I-7091.


title: Case T-207/17: Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/31

         Action brought on 5 April 2017 — Senetic v EUIPO — HP Hewlett Packard Group (hp)
   (Case T-207/17)
   (2017/C 168/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Senetic S.A. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HP Hewlett Packard Group LLC (Houston, Texas, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the letters ‘hp’ — EU trade mark No 8 579 021

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2017 in Case R 1001/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court, as well as the EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-251/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of  31 January 2006  — Albrecht and Others v Commission (Health policy — Veterinary medicinal products — Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin — Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations — Competence)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Albrecht and Others v Commission
   (Case T-251/03) (1)

   (Health policy - Veterinary medicinal products - Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin - Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations - Competence)
   (2006/C 86/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Albert Albrecht GmbH & Co. KG, (Aulendorf, Germany), AniMedica GmbH (Seden-Bösensell, Germany), Ceva Tiergensundheit GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany), Fatro SpA (Bologna, Italy), Laboratorios Syva, SA (León, Spain), Laboratorios Virbac, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Química Farmacéutica Bayer, SA (Barcelona), Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias, SA (Madrid, Spain), Virbac SA (Carros, France), (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Shotter, Agents)

      Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s): French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals,
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.


title: Case C-442/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 13 September 2010 — Churchill Insurance Company Limited, Tracy Evans v Benjamin Wilkinson, by his father and litigation friend Steven Wilkinson, Equity Claims Limited

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 13 September 2010 — Churchill Insurance Company Limited, Tracy Evans v Benjamin Wilkinson, by his father and litigation friend Steven Wilkinson, Equity Claims Limited
   (Case C-442/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/47
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Churchill Insurance Company Limited, Tracy Evans

      Defendants: Benjamin Wilkinson, by his father and litigation friend Steven Wilkinson, Equity Claims Limited

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of the 2009 Directive (1) to be interpreted as precluding national provisions the effect of which, as a matter of the relevant national law, is to exclude from the benefit of insurance a victim of a road traffic accident, in circumstances where:

                           (a)

                           that accident was caused by an uninsured driver; and

                           (b)

                           that uninsured driver had been given permission to drive the vehicle by the victim; and

                           (c)

                           that victim was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the accident; and

                           (d)

                           that victim was insured to drive the vehicle in question?

                     In particular:

                           (i)

                           is such a national provision one which ‘excludes from insurance’ within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the 2009 Directive?

                           (ii)

                           in circumstances such as arising in the present case, is permission given by the insurer to the non-insured ‘express or implied authorization’ within the meaning of Article 13(1)(a) of the 2009 Directive?

                           (iii)

                           is the answer to this question affected by the fact that, pursuant to Article 10 of the 2009 Directive national bodies charged with providing compensation in the case of damage caused by unidentified or uninsured vehicles may exclude the payment of compensation in respect of persons who voluntarily enter the vehicle which caused the damage or injury when the body can prove that those persons know that the vehicle was uninsured?

               2.

               Does the answer to question 1 depend on whether the permission in question (a) was based on actual knowledge that the driver in question was uninsured or (b) was based on a belief that the driver was insured or (c) where the permission in question was granted by the insured person who had not turned his/her mind to the issue?

      (1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 263, p. 11


title: Case C-465/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2015 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-465/15)
   (2015/C 398/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

      Question referred

   Is the third indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive (EC) No 2003/96 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) to be interpreted with respect to the blast furnace process for the production of pig iron as meaning that electricity for the propulsion of the turbo blower is to be regarded as electricity which is used principally for the purposes of chemical reduction?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51).


Important legal notice

|

E1998P0001

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 13 February 1998 in the case of the Norwegian Government, Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health v. Astra Norge AS (Case E-1/98)

Official Journal C 263 , 20/08/1998 P. 0007 - 0007

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 13 February 1998 in the case of the Norwegian Government, Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health v. Astra Norge AS (Case E-1/98) (98/C 263/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 13 February 1998 of Borgarting Lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 February 1998, for an advisory opinion in the case of the Norwegian Government, Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health v. Astra Norge AS, on the following questions:1. Is there a measure present having effect equivalent to import restrictions contrary to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement which cannot be justified by reference to industrial or commercial property in Article 13 of the EEA if a summary of product characteristics which is approved/laid down by the competent medicinal products authority in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC, amended, inter alia by Article 4(9) of Council Directive 83/570/EEC, is protected by the importer's (direct importer's) national copyright law, with the consequence that the medicinal products authority may not give out/approve/lay down the same summary of product characteristics for a product imported by way of parallel import without the consent of the direct importer?2. Does Directive 65/65/EEC, as amended, primarily Articles 4a and 5 of the Directive, allow national legislation to provide copyright protection for a summary of product characteristics which is approved/laid down by the medicinal products authority in that manner and with the consequences described in question


title: Case T-52/02: Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Société Nouvelle des Couleurs Zinciques S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/64               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the decision forming the subject-matter of the dispute disre-
                                                                         gards the principle of proportionality, given the allegedly
                                                                         totally disproportionate nature of the fine at issue, especially
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put             in relation to that imposed on other undertakings in this and
forward in Case T-49/02.                                                 other recent cases, and as regards the taking into account of
                                                                         the legal maximum applicable to the fine itself.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
                                                                         non-discrimination.
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Société Nouvelle
des Couleurs Zinciques S.A. against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische Hypo-
                          (Case T-52/02)                                 und Vereinsbank AG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                        (2002/C 109/121)
                                                                                (Case T-56/02)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/122)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Société
Nouvelle des Couleurs Zinciques S.A., established at Bouchain
(France), represented by Robert Saint-Esteben and Hugues                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische
                                                                         Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, of Munich (Germany), represented
                                                                         by W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     principally, annul Article 3 of the Commission’s decision          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of 11 December 2001, in so far as that article imposes a
      fine of 1,53 million euros on the applicant;                       —     annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 3693 final of
                                                                               11 December 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/37.919
—     alternatively, reduce the amount of that fine very substan-              (ex 37 391) — Bank charges for currency exchange
      tially;                                                                  within the Euro zone — Germany, in so far as it concerns
                                                                               the applicant;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     alternatively, cancel or, in the further alternative, reduce
                                                                               the fine of 28 000 000 euros imposed on the applicant;
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decision contested in the present case is the same as that           Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are similar to those advanced in Case T-33/02.                 The alleged cartel never existed. It is apparent from the
                                                                         information provided by those who attended the meeting of
                                                                         foreign exchange dealers on 15 October 1997 that, during the
According to the applicant, the arbitrary fixing of a basic              course of that meeting, the discussions concerned technical
amount far in excess of the legal maximum is contrary to                 aspects of inter-bank trading in foreign currencies and structur-
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62, inasmuch as it prevents            ing possibilities regarding pricing in retail foreign exchange
the duration of the infringement and the aggravating and                 trading. The meeting did not involve the conclusion of any
mitigating factors from being taken into account. In addition,           anti-competitive agreement.


title: Case C-265/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/24

         Appeal brought on 2 June 2015 by Vestel Iberia, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2015 in Case T-249/12: Vestel Iberia v Commission
   (Case C-265/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Vestel Iberia, SL (represented by: P. De Baere et P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests the Court:

               —

               To set aside, in whole, the judgment delivered by the General Court in Case T-249/12;

               —

               To rule that the appeal is admissible;

               —

               To return the case to the General Court for a ruling on the substantive grounds of appeal;

               —

               To order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and those before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal is brought by Vestel Iberia S.L. against the judgment of 12 March 2015, in Case T-249/12, Vestel Iberia S.L. v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final, on the ground that the Commission decision is not of direct concern to the appellant.
   The appellant submits that the General Court erred in law since the Spanish authorities have no discretion with regard to the result when they implement the Commission decision, and the Commission decision is therefore of direct concern to the appellant.
   More in particular, the appellant submits the following grounds of appeal:

               —

               The General Court erred in law when it held that the national authorities have a margin of discretion in the implementation of the contested decision with regard to the appellant.

               —

               Even if the national authorities have a margin of discretion, quod non, the General Court erred in law because the mere existence of discretion is insufficient to exclude direct concern.

               —

               The General Court erred in the legal characterization of the evidence, or incurred in a distortion of the evidence.


title: Case T-189/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/43

         Action brought on 20 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission
   (Case T-189/17)
   (2017/C 151/55)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 64 720,19 of the payment received by it for the HUMABIO project, that request being made in the debit note 3241615288/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 27 830,27;

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 27 830,27 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615288/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the HUMABIO project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the HUMABIO project, a sum of EUR 64 720,19. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.

               2.

               In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 27 830,27constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.

               3.

               ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 27 830,27constitutes eligible staff costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.


title: Case T-222/05: Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/45

         Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-222/05)
   (2005/C 217/98)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 22 July 2004 confirming the career development report for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 and, as a subsidiary claim, therefore annul the career development report (CDR) for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

               —

               award the applicant the sum, subject to any amendment or increase, of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, challenges his career development report for the assessment year 2003 by alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment. He also claims to be the victim of harassment at work by his senior.


title: Case T-361/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/81

         Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)
   (Case T-361/15)
   (2015/C 294/98)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choice chocolate & ice cream’ — Application for registration No 1 2 6 44  423

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 2221/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-529/11: Action brought on 29 September 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/19

         Action brought on 29 September 2011 — Evonik Industries v OHIM — Impulso Industrial Alternativo (Impulso creador)
   (Case T-529/11)
   2011/C 362/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evonik Industries AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impulso Industrial Alternativo, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 June 2011 in case R 1101/2010-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Impulso creador’, for various goods and services among which services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6146187

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2633891 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 4438206 of the figurative mark ‘IMPULSO’, for services in classes 35 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not correctly consider the different overall impression of the conflicting trademarks.


title: Joined cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Clarke, Dickmanns and Papathanasiou v OHIM (Civil service — Temporary staff — OHIM staff — Fixed-term contract including a termination clause — Clause terminating a contract if the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Date of effect of the termination clause — OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 open competitions)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/93

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Clarke, Dickmanns and Papathanasiou v OHIM
   (Joined cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - OHIM staff - Fixed-term contract including a termination clause - Clause terminating a contract if the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Date of effect of the termination clause - OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 open competitions))
   (2016/C 048/105)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, the action for annulment of the defendant’s decision to apply in the context of the open competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 the clause contained in the applicants’ contracts of employment, which provides for the termination of the contract in the event of their failing the next open competition for their function groups with the specialisation ‘industrial property’, and, secondly, the claim that OHIM be ordered to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage and material damage caused to the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions.

               2.

               Declares that Ms Clarke, Ms Papathanasiou and Ms Dickmanns shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay half the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

               3.

               Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) shall bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 50, p. 51 and p. 52.


title: Case C-9/09: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public Health — Directive 2004/23/EC — Setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-9/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public Health - Directive 2004/23/EC - Setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 282/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-233/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/30

         Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)
   (Case T-233/10)
   2010/C 195/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Individual Company) (Istanbul, Turkey)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2010 in case R 738/2009-1, as far as the opposition decision No B 1326299 has been upheld for all the contested goods;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JUMPMAN’, for goods in class 25

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2657489 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 2752145 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 May 2004 in Case C-517/03: IAMA Consulting Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause — Action before the Court of First Instance — Counterclaim — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 May 2004
   in Case C-517/03: IAMA Consulting Srl v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Action before the Court of First Instance - Counterclaim - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
   (2004/C 228/35)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-517/03: IAMA Consulting Srl, established in Milan (Italy) (lawyer: V. Salvatore) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. de March, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — Counterclaim submitted by the Commission of the European Communities to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities seeking repayment of financial assistance paid in the context of the REGIS 22337 and Refiag 23200 projects, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), M. Ilešic et E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an Order on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

               (2)

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 June 1999 in Case C-321/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms Tingsrätten): Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wåkerås-Andersson v Svenska Staten (Swedish State) (Article 234 EC (ex-Article 177) - EEA Agreement - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Accession to the European Union - Directive 80/987/EEC - Liability of a State)

text:
7.8.1999                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 226/5
on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1990 L 158, p. 59) and on the conditions under which a
Member State incurs liability for loss or damage caused to
individuals through a breach of Community law — the Court,                                             of 15 June 1999
composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Man-
cini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate Gen-                  in Case C-321/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             the Stockholms Tingsrätten): Ulla-Brith Andersson and
given a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it has ruled:                     Susanne Wåkerås-Andersson v Svenska Staten (Swedish
                                                                                State) (1)
1. Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990
                                                                             (Article 234 EC (ex-Article 177) — EEA Agreement —
    on package travel, package holidays and package tours applies to
                                                                             Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice — Accession to the
    trips which are offered by a daily newspaper as a gift exclusive to
                                                                             European Union — Directive 80/987/EEC — Liability of a
    its subscribers as part of an advertising initiative that contravenes
                                                                                State)
    national competition laws and for which the principal contractor,
    if he travels alone, pays airport taxes and a single room
    supplement or, if he is accompanied by one or more persons
    paying the full rate, airport taxes only.                                                          (1999/C 226/08)
2. A Member State which acceded to the European Union on
    1 January 1995 has not properly transposed Article 7 of the                                 (Language of the case: Swedish)
    directive into national law if it has adopted legislation which
    protects travellers who have booked package travel after 1 January
    1995 but limits that protection to trips with a departure date of
    1 May 1995 or later.                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
3. Transposition of Article 7 of Directive 90/314 in a way that
    limits the protection prescribed by that provision to trips with a       In Case C-321/97: reference to the Court under Article 234
    departure date four months or more after the expiry of the               EC (ex Article 177) by the Stockholms Tingsrätten, Sweden,
    period prescribed for transposition of the directive constitutes a       for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    sufficiently serious breach of Community law, even where the             court between Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wåkerås-
    Member State has implemented all the other provisions of the             Andersson and Svenska Staten (Swedish State) — on the
    directive.                                                               interpretation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the European
                                                                             Economic Area signed on 2 May 1992 and approved by
                                                                             Decision 94/1/EC, ECSC of the Council and the Commission
4. Article 7 of Directive 90/314 has not been properly transposed            of 13 December 1993 on the conclusion of the Agreement
    where national legislation does no more than require, for the            on the European Economic Area between the European
    coverage of the risk, a contract of insurance or a bank guarantee        Communities, their Member States and the Republic of Austria,
    under which the amount of cover provided must be no less than            the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality
    5 % of the organiser’s business turnover in the corresponding            of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of
    quarter of the previous calendar year and which requires an              Sweden (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 1), and Council Directive 80/987/EEC
    organiser just starting up in business to base the amount of cover       of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
    on his estimated turnover from his anticipated business as a             Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
    travel organiser, without taking account of any increase in the          event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283,
    organiser’s business turnover in the current year.                       p. 23) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                             President, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
                                                                             Chambers, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray,
5. Once a direct causal link has been established, the Member                D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevór (Rapporteur) and
    State’s liability for breach of Article 7 of the directive cannot be     M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von
    precluded by imprudent conduct on the part of the travel organiser       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June
                                                                             1999, in which it has ruled:
    or by the occurrence of exceptional or unforeseeable events.
                                                                             1. The Court has no jurisdiction to reply to the first question.
(1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1996.
                                                                             2. Community law does not enable individuals to rely before the
                                                                                courts or tribunals of a European Free Trade Area State which
                                                                                has acceded to the European Union on rights derived directly
                                                                                from Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on
                                                                                the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/6                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            7.8.1999
     employer, or for that State to be held liable for damage caused to       2. National legislation restricting imports of alcoholic drinks by
     them by failure to transpose the directive correctly, where the               travellers arriving from non-member countries in order to
     events which give rise to the operation of the guarantee provided             maintain public order is not, in principle, contrary to Regulation
     for in the directive occurred prior to the date of accession.                 No 918/83 or Directive 69/169.
                                                                              3. National legislation restricting imports by travellers arriving
(1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.                                                         from third countries of alcoholic drinks, on the basis of the
                                                                                duration of the journey, with a view to combating disturbances
                                                                                of public order connected with the consumption of alcohol, is not
                                                                                contrary to Regulation No 918/83 or Directive 69/169.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 15 June 1999
in Case C-394/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Helsingin Käräjäoikeus): Criminal proceedings against
                           Sami Heinonen (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Goods contained in travellers personal luggage — Travellers
arriving from non-member countries — Duty-free allow-                                                    of 15 June 1999
ances — Prohibition on imports linked to minimum period
                              spent abroad)                                   in Case C-421/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux): Yves Tarantik
                            (1999/C 226/09)                                      v Direction des Services Fiscaux de Seine-et-Marne(1)
                     (Language of the case: Finnish)                          (Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
                                                                                90 EC) — Differential tax on motor vehicles)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                   (1999/C 226/10)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-394/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                                         (Language of the case: French)
EC (ex Article 177) by the Helsingin Käräjäoikeus, Finland, for
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that
court against Sami Heinonen — on the interpretation of                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983                                               in the European Court Reports)
setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
(OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) and Council Directive 69/169/EEC of
28 May 1969 on the harmonisation of provisions laid                           In Case C-421/97: reference to the Court under Article 234
down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to                  EC (ex Article 177) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in                     Meaux, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
international travel (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I),                   pending before that court between Yves Tarantik and Direction
p. 232) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of                              des Services Fiscaux de Seine-et-Marne — on the interpretation
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rappor-                  of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
teur), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,                  Article 90 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it                  Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
has ruled:                                                                    Judges; F.C. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it
1. National legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain         has ruled:
     goods by travellers arriving from non-member countries on
     grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or            National rules on motor vehicle tax such as those in point in the
     protection of health and life of humans is not contrary to Council       main proceedings do not, as a result of the increase in the progression
     Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a                 coefficient of the tax between the 15-16 CV tax band, on the one
     Community system of reliefs from customs duty and Council                hand, and the tax bands above 18 CV, which contain only imported
     Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonisation                 vehicles, on the other, have discriminatory or protective effects which
     of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative             are incompatible with the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC
     action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty           Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC)
     on imports in international travel.                                      where:


title: Case T-455/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2007 — Beyatli and Candan v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Notice of competition — Time-limits — Compalint — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2007 — Beyatli and Candan v Commission
   (Case T-455/04) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Notice of competition - Time-limits - Compalint - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 95/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Derya Beyatli (Nicosia, Cyprus) and Armagan Candan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: A. Demetriades, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of 5 May 2004 of the president of the selection board of open competition EPSO/A/1/03 notifying the applicants of their failure in the written tests
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each of the parties is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57 of 5.1.2005.