title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti Siilin (Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)

text:
C 274/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
4.    Orders Falck SpA and Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA to share the                mission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
      costs in Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P;                                    down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2913/92, but precludes the taxable value from varying
5.    Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs in Cases                 according to the marketing stage where this may result, at least
      C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P.                                                   in certain cases, in the amount of the tax on an imported used
                                                                                car exceeding the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the
                                                                                value of a similar used car already registered in the national
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                territory.
                                                                            2.   The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes a
                                                                                Member State from applying to used cars imported from
                                                                                another Member State a system of taxation under which the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          tax on those vehicles
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                —      is equal, during the first six months from the registration
                                                                                or bringing into use of the vehicle, to the tax charged on
                      of 19 September 2002
                                                                                a similar new vehicle, and
in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti                        —      is equal, from the 7th to the 150th month of use of the
                                Siilin ( 1)                                             vehicle, to the tax on a similar new vehicle, with a linear
                                                                                reduction by a percentage of 0,5 % per full calendar
(Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article                            month,
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph
           of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)
                                                                                since such a system of taxation does not take the actual
                           (2002/C 274/08)                                       depreciation of the vehicle into account and does not provide a
                                                                                guarantee that the amount of tax it determines will in no case
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                              exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
                                                                                used car already registered in the national territory.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            3.   Where a Member State applies to used cars imported from
                                                                                other Member States a system of taxation under which the
                                                                                actual depreciation of the vehicles is defined in a general and
In Case C-101/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                       abstract way on the basis of criteria laid down by national law,
EC by the korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary                    the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty requires that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought                      system of taxation to be arranged in such a way, making
by Tulliasiamies, and Antti Siilin, on the interpretation of the                 allowance for the reasonable approximations inherent in any
first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after                       system of that type, as to exclude any discriminatory effect. That
amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) and of the                      requirement presupposes, first, that the criteria on which the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         flat-rate method of calculating the depreciation of vehicles is
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                       based are made public and, second, that the owner of a used
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                       vehicle imported from another Member State is able to challenge
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version of                     the application of a flat-rate method of calculation to that
Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992                                 vehicle, which may mean that its particular characteristics have
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplifi-                          to be examined in order to ensure that the tax applied to it does
cation measures with regard to value added tax (OJ 1992                          not exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
L 384, p. 47), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,                  used vehicle already registered in the national territory.
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-             4.   A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, described
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September                  in national law as ‘value added tax’ on car tax, does not
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                     constitute ‘value added tax’ within the meaning of the Sixth
                                                                                Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
1.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) allows a                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      Member State to apply to used vehicles imported from another               basis of assessment, in the version of Council Directive 92/
      Member State a system of taxation under which the taxable                  111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388/
      value is determined by reference to the customs value as defined           EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to
      by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October                       value added tax, and is compatible with Article 33 of that
      1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Com-                      directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/7
5.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes the                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
      which is payable on car tax, in so far as the amount charged as
      such a tax on a used car imported from another Member State
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
      exceeds the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value
      of a similar used car already registered in the national territory.
                                                                                of 19 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-113/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (State aid — Agriculture — Aid for horticultural products
                                                                             intended for industrial processing in Extremadura —
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Small amount of aid
                                                                             — No comments from parties concerned — Operating aid
                                                                             — Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation
                      of 19 September 2002                                   of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods
                                                                                — Statement of reasons)
in Case C-104/00 P: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung
AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                      (2002/C 274/10)
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Word ‘Companyline’ — Absolute ground for
                 refusal — Distinctive character)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2002/C 274/09)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-113/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-
                                                                             de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
In Case C-104/00 P, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                      D. Triantafyllou): Application for annulment of Commission
(represented by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen): Appeal against                  Decision 2000/237/EC of 22 December 1999 concerning an
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of horticultural
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 January 2000 in Case                      products intended for industrial processing in Extremadura in
T-19/99 DKV v OHIM (COMPANYLINE) [2000] ECR II-1,                            the 1997/98 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 75, p. 54), the Court
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the              (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von                      C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-
Mühlendahl and D. Schennen), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                      cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                 19 September 2002, in which it:
S. von Bahr, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 September 2002, in which it:                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG to pay the
      costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-85/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014  — K-Swiss v OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2014 — K-Swiss v OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-85/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)))
   2014/C 245/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Künzli SwissSchuh AG (Windisch, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 174/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Künzli SwissSchuh AG and K-Swiss, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders K-Swiss, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Action brought on 27 March 1996 by Whirlpool Sweden AB and Whirlpool SMC Microwave Products Co., Ltd, against the Council of the European Union (Case T-46/96)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 180/31
compensation for damage . It claims that the delay in taking         The applicants claim that the Court should:
over the delivery of oil caused not only the damage
acknowledged in the present case by the Commission but
also subsequent and extensive damage which the                       — annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation ( EC )
Commission has unlawfully failed to consider . In particular,            No 5/96 of 22 December 1995 imposing definitive
the Commission has not acknowledged : ( a ) loss of profits              anti-dumping duties on imports of microwave ovens
since the applicant did not have available the security lodged           originating in the People's Republic of China, the
in favour of the Commission. The security could not be                   Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand, insofar as it
released during the whole period of the unlawful delay; ( b )            applies to the applicants; and
interest at the statutory rate and currency devaluation from
the moment the damage suffered by the applicant occurred .           — order the defendant institution to bear the costs of the
The applicant, after having sought in vain to reach an                   proceedings pursuant to Article 7 of the Rules of
understanding with the Commission, is now constrained to                 Procedure of the Court of First Instance .
bring an action under Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty
in order to obtain full compensation for such harm.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments:
Moreover, the applicant points out that the Commission
specifically refused to acknowledge part of the damage               The applicants, two companies incorporated under Swedish
complained of by a decision of the institution, commu               and Hong-Kong law respectively, belonging both to the
nicated to the applicant by the aforementioned letter of             multinational Whirlpool Corporation, the world's leading
16 January 1996 . Thus, the applicant also considered it             producer and marketer of quality major home appliances,
appropriate to bring an action under Article 173 of the              challenge Regulation ( EC ) No 5/96 on the following
Treaty for partial annulment against the decision itself. The        grounds :
applicant considers that the restriction placed on the extent
of the damage acknowledged is not justified on any objective         Violation of the basic Regulation and Anti-dumping Code.
or valid ground . The Commission has committed in the                The applicants submit on this regard that no causal link
present case a manifest error of assessment. It follows that         between imports from the countries concerned and an injury
the Commission, by refusing to acknowledge part of the               of the Community industry can be found . In the alternative ,
damage suffered by the applicant, has misused its powers,            should such a link be found, then an apportion should have
thus vitiating the lawfulness of the decision .                      been made by the Community institutions . Since no such
                                                                     apportion was made, the Community institutions would
                                                                     have violated Articles 4 ( 1 ) and 13 ( 3 ) of the basic
(') OJ No L 265 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                   Regulation and Articles 3.5 and II . 1 of the Anti-dumping
                                                                     Code .
                                                                     Consequently, by failing to conduct an appropriate inquiry,
                                                                     the Community institutions did not correctly apply the legal
                                                                     standard for the assessment of causation. In any case,
                                                                     Whirlpool results should have been taken into account
                                                                     when assessing injury.
                                                                     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement,
                                                                     insofar as the Community institutions breached the rights of
Action brought on 27 March 1996 by Whirlpool Sweden                  defence and the right to a fair hearing in the conduct of the
AB and Whirlpool SMC Microwave Products Co., Ltd,                    proceeding leading to the adoption of the contested
         against the Council of the European Union                   Regulation .
                        ( Case T-46/96 )
                          ( 96/C 180/80 )                            Misuse ofpower. The Community institutions misused their
                                                                     powers by failing to exert their delegated powers fairly and
                                                                     impartially, with due respect for procedural rights and
                                                                     general principles of Community law.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as
                                                                     the inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory statement of
An action against the Council of the European Union was              reasons presented by the Community institutions makes it
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           impossible to know the real and complete reasons for their
Communities on 27 March 1996 by Whirlpool Sweden AB                  decisions .
and Whirlpool SMC Microwave Products Co., Ltd .,
represented by Mr Onno W Brouwer and Mr Pierre
Larouche with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 , rue Goethe .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Term CINE COMEDY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 134/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.5.2001
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices                    —    cultural activities; organisation and conducting of shows,
of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, v                           quizzes and musical events and conducting competitions
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo, H. von Hertzen,                                in the entertainment field, with a view to their broadcast-
D. Moore and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for                                 ing either at a subsequent time or live on radio or
annulment of the decisions of the Parliament not to appoint the                       television; production of television and radio advertising
applicants to the post of Director-General of the Directorate-                        broadcasts including associated prize game broadcasts;
General for Finance and Financial Control and of the decision                         organising competitions in the entertainment field; organ-
appointing another candidate to that post and, second, for                            ising concerts, theatre events and variety shows, all falling
damages — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                under Class 41;
composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh
and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment                 —    management and exploitation of copyright and industrial
on 16 January 2001, in which it:                                                      property rights for others; technical consultancy in the
                                                                                field of multimedia, interactive television and Pay TV (in
1.    Dismisses the actions;                                                          so far as included in Class 42); computer programming,
                                                                                including video and computer games, all falling under
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                     Class 42;
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999 and OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.                       2.    Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;
                                                                           3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99.
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 31 January 2001
in Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(Community trade mark — Term CINE ACTION — Absol-                                                  of 31 January 2001
ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                             No 40/94)                                     in Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                          (2001/C 134/38)                                                          Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          (Community trade mark — Term CINE COMEDY —
                                                                           Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
In Case T-135/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co, established                                                  (EC) No 40/94)
in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, with an address for service in Luxem-                                          (2001/C 134/39)
bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Bonne) —                                      (Language of the case: German)
application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case                    In Case T-136/99: Taurus-Film GmbH & Co, established
R 98/98-3), concerning the registration of the term CINE                   in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by R. Schneider,
ACTION as a Community trade mark — the Court of First                      Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, with an address for service in Luxem-
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,             bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,                and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and S. Bonne) —
in which it:                                                               application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
                                                                           of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            R 97/98-3), concerning the registration of the term CINE
      Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 98/98-3) in so far as it           COMEDY as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
      concerns the following services:                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,
                                                                           A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
      —    allocation and transfer of rights of access for users of        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,
           various communication networks, falling under Class 38;         in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 134/19
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       selection board of 21 June 1999 confirming that initial
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            decision following a re-examination thereof and, second, of all
      Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 97/98-3) in so far as it           subsequent steps taken and measures adopted in the said
      concerns the following services:                                     competition — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
      —    allocation and transfer of rights of access for users of        Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 January 2001, in which
           various communication networks, falling under Class 38;         it:
      —    cultural activities; organisation and conducting of shows,      1.    Dismisses the application;
           quizzes and musical events and conducting competitions
           in the entertainment field, with a view to their broadcast-     2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
           ing either at a subsequent time or live on radio or
           television; production of television and radio advertising
           broadcasts including associated prize game broadcasts;          (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
           organising competitions in the entertainment field; organ-
           ising concerts, theatre events and variety shows, all falling
           under Class 41;
      —    management and exploitation of copyright and industrial
           property rights for others; technical consultancy in the
           field of multimedia, interactive television and Pay TV (in
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           so far as included in Class 42); computer programming,
           including video and computer games, all falling under
           Class 42;                                                                              of 31 January 2001
2.    Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;                            in Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                                 Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                   (Community trade mark — Term DOUBLEMINT — Absol-
                                                                           ute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/41)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                        of 17 January 2001                                 In Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established in
                                                                           Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by
                                                                           M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, 58 Maximilianstraße,
in Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos v Commission of                     Munich, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the
                 the European Communities (1)                              Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
                                                                           V. Melgar and S. Laitinen) — application for annulment of the
(Competition COM/A/12/98 — Action for annulment —                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Pre-selection tests — Retroactive cancellation of certain                  Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
multiple-choice questions — Principle of equal treatment of                Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1) concerning
candidates — Obligation to provide a statement of reasons)                 the registration of the term DOUBLEMINT as a Community
                                                                           trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                          (2001/C 134/40)                                  composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
In Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos, residing in Thessaloni-
                                                                                Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1);
ki (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                           2.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
of Brown Holding SA, 310 Route d’Esch, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and M. Condou
Durande) — application for annulment, first, of the decision               (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
of 30 April 1999 of the selection board in competition
COM/A/12/98 excluding the applicant from the tests sub-
sequent to the pre-selection test and of the decision of that


title: Case T-276/13: Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/11

         Action brought on 15 May 2013 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council
   (Case T-276/13)
   (2013/C 226/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Growth Energy (Washington, United States), Renewable Fuels Association (Washington, United States) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ L 49 of 22.2.2013, p. 10), in so far as it affects the applicants and their members; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants rely on the following ten pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission acted contrary to the Basic Regulation, since it opted for a countrywide duty and refused to calculate an individual dumping duty, despite the fact that it had all the information it needed to do so. In this regard, the applicants note that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts, an error in law, failed to state reasons for its conclusions, breached its duty of care and violated the rights of defence as well as the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectations of the applicants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission's failure to adjust the export price when calculating the dumping margin, by not making an upward adjustment to export prices for blends of the blender concerned, constitutes a manifest error in the assessment of the relevant facts and an error in law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts and infringed the Basic Regulation and the principle of non-discrimination by overestimating the volume of imports of bioethanol from the US and by not treating these imports in a similar way to third country imports of the same product.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and violated the Basic Regulation when performing injury margin calculations.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment and infringed the Basic Regulation by basing its material injury determination on a Union industry that does not manufacture a like product and by defining the Union industry before defining the like product.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation is flawed as a result of manifest errors of assessment and errors of law since the material injury it provides for is determined on data pertaining to a non-representative sample of Union producers.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that other causes of material injury do not break the causal link between the targeted imports and alleged injury to the Union industry.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Council erred in law and violated the principle of proportionality by adopting a dumping measure which is not necessary.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors in law and breached the principles of sound administration and non-discrimination by considering that the investigation into US origin bioethanol was based on an adequate complaint, when the latter did not satisfy the requirements set by the Basic Regulation.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed multiple violations of the rights of defence of the applicants and failed to state reasons in the adoption of the Contested Regulation, given that the definitive disclosure on which it is based did not contain essential facts and considerations for the adoption of the definitive measures. The Commission also changed the period of validity of the measures without stating reasons while it did not allow the applicants to access to the non-confidential file in a timely manner nor did it allow sufficient time for the applicants to submit comments on the definitive disclosure.


title: Case T-262/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Safariland v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision adopted by one of the OHIM Boards of Appeal — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 63(2), 65(6), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Safariland v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR)
   (Case T-262/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision adopted by one of the OHIM Boards of Appeal - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 63(2), 65(6), 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Safariland LLC, formerly Defense Technology Corporation of America (Jacksonville, Florida, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented: initially by H. Daniel and O. Haleen, and subsequently by O. Haleen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2009 (Case R 493/2002-4 (II)), relating to opposition proceedings between Defense Technology Corporation of America and DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Safariland LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-303/10: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Wam Industriale v Commission (State aid — Undertaking with subsidiaries in certain third countries — Reduced rate loans — Decision declaring aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering it to be repaid — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — Execution of a judgment of the General Court — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Duty to exercise diligence — Duty of care)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Wam Industriale v Commission
   (Case T-303/10) (1)

   (State aid - Undertaking with subsidiaries in certain third countries - Reduced rate loans - Decision declaring aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering it to be repaid - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - Execution of a judgment of the General Court - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Duty to exercise diligence - Duty of care)
   2012/C 355/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Wam Industriale SpA (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 concerning State aid C 4/03 (ex NN 102/02) implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Wam Industriale SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-579/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2008 by Messer Group GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-305/06 Air Products and Chemicals Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/17

         Appeal brought on 24 December 2008 by Messer Group GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2008 in Case T-305/06 Air Products and Chemicals Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-579/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Messer Group GmbH (represented by: W. Graf v. Schwerin and J. Schmidt, Attorneys at law)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Air Products and Chemicals Inc., Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 in joined cases T-305/06, T-306/06 and T-307/06 and dismiss the action

               —

               Order the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the appellant and intervener,

         alternatively,

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 in joined cases T-305/06, T-306/06 and T-307/06;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               Reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance failed to apply correctly the criteria laid down for the proper implementation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).
   Furthermore the applicant submits that the contested decision of the Court of First Instance is based on a substantive inaccuracy in its findings with respect to the determination of the relevant public.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 2003 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-443/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges (France) lodged on 14 September 2010 — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de services et de paiement

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges (France) lodged on 14 September 2010 — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de services et de paiement
   (Case C-443/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/34
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Limoges

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Philippe Bonnarde

      Defendant: Agence de services et de paiement

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of European Union law, in particular those of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union intended to ensure freedom of movement, and those of the abovementioned directives concerning vehicle registration documents, to be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s legislation from introducing, for the registration of vehicles, a specific document, such as a vehicle registration document on which must be stated ‘demonstration vehicle’, which could be regarded as not intended to constitute temporary registration within the meaning of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles, (1) amended by Directive 2003/127/EC, (2) and consequently as precluding the grant of an advantage from being linked to production of such a document?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, do those provisions imply that, where a vehicle is purchased in another Member State, national legislation making the grant of a subsidy for the purchase of clean vehicles which have already been registered subject to the condition that the registration certificate bear, by virtue of the legislation of the Member State, the statement ‘demonstration vehicle’ must be disapplied, where the seller of the vehicle has not himself been able to benefit from that subsidy and where:

                           —

                           either the purchaser produces a vehicle registration document issued in the other Member State and specific to vehicles intended for use for the purposes of demonstration,

                           —

                           or the vehicle has the characteristics, relating in particular to the date of its first entry into service, required by national legislation for it to be classified as a demonstration vehicle?

      (1)  OJ L 138, p. 57.

      (2)  Commission Directive of 23 December 2003, amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 2004 L 10, p. 29).


title: Case C-235/07: Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-235/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/51)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case T -389/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  16 January 2006  — Germany v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/51

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2006 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T -389/04) (1)

   (2006/C 60/95)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-438/10: Order of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — Forgital Italy v Council (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products — Amendment of the description of certain suspensions — Regulatory act comprising implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/19

         Order of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — Forgital Italy v Council
   (Case T-438/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products - Amendment of the description of certain suspensions - Regulatory act comprising implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 39/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Forgital Italy SpA (Velo d'Astico, Italy) (represented by: V. Turinetti di Priero and R. Mastroianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M.F. Florindo Gijón and A. Lo Monaco, and subsequently by: M. Florindo Gijón and K. Pellinghelli, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and L. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (OJ 2010 L 163, p. 4), in so far as it amends the description of certain goods in respect of which the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties were suspended.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Forgital Italy SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-532/14 and C-533/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (References for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Classification for customs purposes — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading 2206 — Tariff heading 2208 — Alcoholic beverages obtained through fermentation followed by purification — Addition of additives to alcoholic beverages obtained through fermentation followed by purification — Beverages which have lost the properties of beverages falling under tariff heading 2206)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 May 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Toorank Productions BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-532/14 and C-533/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Classification for customs purposes - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading 2206 - Tariff heading 2208 - Alcoholic beverages obtained through fermentation followed by purification - Addition of additives to alcoholic beverages obtained through fermentation followed by purification - Beverages which have lost the properties of beverages falling under tariff heading 2206))
   (2016/C 243/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Toorank Productions BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               On a proper construction of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the versions resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 and from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, a beverage, such as Ferm Fruit, which is obtained through fermentation of an apple concentrate and is designed to be consumed either undiluted or as a base in other beverages, being neutral in terms of colour, smell and taste as a result of purification (including ultrafiltration) and having an alcoholic strength by volume, without the addition of distilled alcohol, of 16 % falls under heading 2208 of that nomenclature.

               2.

               On a proper construction of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the versions resulting from Regulation No 1719/2005 and from Regulation No 1214/2007, beverages with an alcoholic strength by volume of 14 % which are manufactured by adding sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents and preservatives and, for one of those beverages, cream, to Ferm Fruit, and which do not contain distilled alcohol, fall under heading 2208 of that nomenclature.

               3.

               On a proper construction of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, in the versions resulting from Regulation No 1719/2005 and from Regulation No 1214/2007, a beverage with an alcoholic strength by volume of 13,4 % which is manufactured by adding sugar, aromatic substances, colouring and flavouring agents, thickening agents, preservatives and distilled alcohol to Ferm Fruit, where that distilled alcohol does not exceed, either in volume or percentage, 49 % of the alcohol present in that beverage, with the remaining 51 % resulting from a process of fermentation, falls under heading 2208 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Communities v Antonio Giannini (Appeal — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance — Abuse of power)

text:
22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 211/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                         costs.
                         of 13 April 2000                                    (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
in Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Com-
                munities v Antonio Giannini (1)
(Appeal — Implementation of a judgment of the Court of
               First Instance — Abuse of power)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (2000/C 211/01)                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             in Case C-348/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Directive 96/9/EC — Non-transposition within the pre-
                                                                                scribed period)
In Case C-153/99 P: Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — appeal against the                                         (2000/C 211/02)
judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of
25 February 1999 in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98
Giannini v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-33 and II-151,                                           (Language of the case: French)
seeking to have that judgment set aside in so far as it contains
an error of law regarding the abuse of power and the
infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
EC) which the Commission was alleged to have committed,                                         in the European Court Reports)
the other party to the proceedings being Antonio Giannini, an
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                      In Case C-348/99, Commission of the European Communities
residing in Brussels, represented by M. Dallemagne and C. Loc-               (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Desantes Real) v Grand Duchy
chi, of the Brussels Bar, 85 Rue du Prince Royal, B-1050                     of Luxembourg (Agent: M.P. Steinmetz), for a declaration that,
Brussels — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moit-                by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
inho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                        measures necessary in order to comply with Directive 96/9/EC
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges;             of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              1996 on the legal protection of databases, (OJ 1996 L77,
judgment on 13 April 2000, in which it:                                      p. 20), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its


title: Case T-53/16: Action brought on 05 February 2016 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/30

         Action brought on 05 February 2016 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
   (Case T-53/16)
   (2016/C 145/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission Decision of 23 July 2014 in State aid case SA.33961 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) which found that Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services received unlawful State aid, incompatible with the internal market, through a number of agreements relating to the Nîmes-Garons airport; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the decision violates Article 41 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, the principle of good administration and the applicants’ rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants to access the file of the investigation and to put the applicants in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission wrongly imputed the measures at issue to the State.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission erroneously considered that the resources of Veolia Transport Aéroport de Nîmes (VTAN), one of the airport’s managers, were State resources.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission failed to properly apply the market economy operator test. The Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, wrongly dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services, erroneously dismissed the possibility that part of the marketing services may have been purchased for general interest purposes, erroneously considered the airport manager, le Syndicat Mixte pour l’aménagement et le dévelopment de l’aéroport de Nîmes — Alès — Camargue — Cévennes (SMAN), and its privately held contractor VTAN as a single entity, based its conclusions on incomplete and inappropriate data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair, and neglected to compare the data submitted by the airport to those typically related to a well-run airport. In any event, even if there was an advantage to the applicants, the Commission failed to establish that the advantage was selective.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, on a subsidiary basis, a breach of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFUE, because the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of the airport (as calculated by the Commission) instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, it failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through the alleged aid and it failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the grant of the aid.


9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/23
           subject to the levy for the purposes of the latter's       3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative,
           business , with the exception of sales of businesses ,          must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
           and                                                             to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in 90
                                                                           days ?
     ( b ) the turnover tax payable by the person subject to
           the levy on imports of goods for his business or on        (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
           purchases effected within the Community for the                imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton
           purposes of his business ?                                     yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No L 82 , 27 . 3 . 1992 ,
                                                                          p. 1 ).
2 . Does Article 33 of the sixth Directive prohibit the
     charging of a levy such as that described in the first
     question ?
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                     Removal from the register of Case C-55/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/46 )
                                                                      By order of 1 8 July 1996 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                      register of Case C-55/95 : Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo                   Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Tribunal Administrativo (2? Sec^ao — Contencioso
Tributario ), by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996,          (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil, SA v.
                          Fazenda Publica
                         ( Case C-322/96
                           ( 96/C 336/45 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-156/94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Supremo                     By order of 1 1 September 1996 the President of the Court of
Tribunal Administrativo ( 2? Sec^ao — Contencioso                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Tributario) ( Supreme Administrative Court (2nd Division —            from the register of Case C-156/94 : Commission of the
Fiscal Matters )) of 14 February 1996 , which was received at         European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom
the Court Registry on 2 October 1996 , for a preliminary              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Ireland, supported
ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil , SA          by the Republic of France .
v. Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
1 . Is the increase ( of 1% for each month that elapses
     without payment being made, following the 30th day
     after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
     the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 (') of 23 March 1992
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-115/96 ( )
     applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date                                    96/C 336/48 )
     falling after that 30th day ?
                                                                      By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Court of
2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a       from the register of Case C-l 55/96 ( reference for a
     distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in      preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta ( Customs
     circumstance like those in this case [see the facts proved]      Board ), Helsinki ): Application for an advance ruling by
     where the price of the imported goods, agreed as payable         Outokumpu Oy .
     in 90 days, was about 2,8 % greater than the price
     payable CAD ( cash against documents )?                          (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1997 in Case C-98/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt): Kasim Ertanir v. Land Hessen (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Council of Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Meaning of 'duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State' and 'legal employment' - Residence permit restricted to temporary employment as a specialist chef for a specific employer - Periods not covered by a residence and/or work permit - Calculation of periods of employment)

text:
C 357/2                I EN |             Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
(Federal Administrative Court ) ( Germany ), for a prelimi                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
between Faik Giinaydin, Hatice Giinaydin, Giines Gunay
din, Seda Giinaydin and Freistaat Bayern — on the                                         of 30 September 1997
interpretation of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of
19 September 1980 on the development of the                          in Case C-98/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Association, adopted by the Association Council                      the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt): Kasim Ertanir v. Land
                                                                                Hessen (')
established by the Association Agreement between the
European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court                   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President              Council of Association — Freedom of movement for
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H.                   workers — Meaning of 'duly registered as belonging to
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B.             the labour force of a Member State ' and 'legal
Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal                      employment' — Residence permit restricted to temporary
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            employment as a specialist chef for a specific employer —
30 September 1997, in which it has ruled:                            Periods not covered by a residence and/or work permit —
                                                                                Calculation of periods of employment)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/03 )
1 . Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September
     1 980 on the development of the Association, adopted                            (Language of the case: German)
     by the Association Council established by the
     Association Agreement between the European
     Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     as meaning that a Turkish national who has been                           published in the European Court Reports)
     lawfully employed in a Member State for an
     uninterrupted period of more than three years in a
                                                                     In Case C-98/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     genuine and effective economic activity for the same
     employer and whose employment status is not                     of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht
     objectively different to that of other employees                ( Administrative Court ), Darmstadt ( Germany ) for a
     employed by the same employer or in the sector                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Kasim Ertanir and Land Hessen — on the
     concerned and exercising identical or comparable
     duties, is duly registered as belonging to the labour           interpretation of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of
     force of the State and is legally employed within the           19 September 1980 on the development of the
     meaning of that provision. A Turkish national in that           Association, adopted by the Association Council
     situation may therefore seek the renewal of his permit          established by the Association Agreement between the
     to reside in the host Member State notwithstanding              European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court
     the fact that he was permitted to take up paid                  ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     employment there only temporarily with a specific               of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H.
     employer for the purpose of acquainting himself with            Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B.
     and preparing for employment in one of its                      Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
     subsidiaries in Turkey, and obtained work and                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     residence permits for that purpose only.                        30 September 1997, in which it has ruled :
                                                                     1 . Article 6 (3) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September
                                                                          1980 on the development of the Association, adopted
2 . The fact that a Turkish worker wishes to extend his                   by the Association Council established by the
     stay in the host Member State, although he expressly                 Association Agreement between the European
     accepted its restriction, does not constitute an abuse of            Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted
     rights. The fact that he declared his intention of                   as meaning that it does not permit Member States to
     returning to Turkey after having been employed in the                adopt national legislation which excludes at the outset
     Member State for the purpose of perfecting his                       whole categories of Turkish migrant workers, such as
     vocational skills is not such as to deprive him of the               specialist chefs, from the rights conferred by the three
     rights deriving from Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80             indents of Article 6 (1 ).
     unless it is established by the national court that that
     declaration was made with the sole intention of
     improperly obtaining work and residence permits for             2 . A Turkish national who has been lawfully employed in
     the host Member State.                                               a Member State for an uninterrupted period of more
                                                                          than one year as a specialist chef by the same
                                                                          employer is duly registered as belonging to the labour
                                                                          force of that Member State and is legally employed
(') OJ C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                          within the meaning of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /
                                                                          80. A Turkish national in that situation may
                                                                          accordingly seek the renewal of his permit to reside in
                                                                          the host Member State notwithstanding the fact that
                                                                          he was advised when the work and residence permits
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/3
     were granted that they were for a maximum of three                     sessions of the institution for 1996 to the extent that it
     years and restricted to specific work, in this case as a               does not provide for 1 2 ordinary plenary part-sessions
     specialist chef, for a specific employer.                              in Strasbourg in 1 996;
                                                                       2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs;
3 . Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 is to be interpreted
     as requiring account to be taken, for the purpose of
     calculating the periods of legal employment referred to           3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its
     in that provision, of short periods during which the                   own costs .
     Turkish worker did not hold a valid residence or work
     permit in the host Member State and which are not                 (') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
     covered by Article 6 (2) of that Decision, where the
     competent authorities of the host Member State have
     not called in question on that ground the legality of
     the residence of the worker in the country but have,
     on the contrary, issued him with a new residence or
     work permit.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
                                                                       in Case C-l/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Hellen
                                                                                Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern (')
                                                                       (Equal treatment for men and women — Public servant —
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Part-time employment — Calculation of length of service)
                         of 1 October 1997                                                         ( 97/C 357/05 )
in Case C-345/95 : French Republic, supported by Grand
      Duchy of Luxembourg v. European Parliament (')                                   (Language of the case: German)
(Seat of the institutions — European Parliament — Part-
                                sessions)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 97/C 357/04 )
                                                                       In Case C-l /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: French)                        of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                       ( Bavarian Administrative Court), Ansbach ( Germany), for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                       that court between Hellen Gerster and Freistaat Bayern —
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                                                                       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to the application of the principle of equal pay for men
In Case C-345/95 : French Republic ( Agents: Marc Perrin               and women ( OJ L 45, 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ) and Council
de Brichambaut and Denys Wibaux), supported by Grand                   Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit ) v.                        implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
European Parliament ( Agent: Gregorio Garzón Clariana,                 men and women as regards access to employment,
assisted by Christian Pennera and Hans Krück ) —                       vocational training and promotion, and working
application for annulment of the vote of the European                  conditions ( OJ L 39, 14. 2. 1976, p. 40 ) — the Court
Parliament of 20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.Murray ( Rapporteur ),
part-sessions of the institution for 1996 — the Court,                 President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                of the Sixth Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,               judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), M.
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                    1 . Article 119 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1997, in                       applying to employment relationships arising in the
which it:                                                                   public service.
                                                                       2 . A provision of national law which requires that, for
1 . annuls the vote of the European Parliament of                           the purposes of calculating the length of service of
     20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of part                        public servants, periods of employment during which


title: Case T-325/14: Action brought on 6 May 2014  — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/27

         Action brought on 6 May 2014 — mobile.international v OHIM — Rezon (mobile.de)
   (Case T-325/14)
   2014/C 235/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: mobile.international GmbH (Kleinmachnow, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 922/2013-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘mobile.de’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 9 3 76  989

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Rezon OOD

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: national figurative mark including the word elements ‘mobile’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and the case is referred back to the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 57 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the rules on abuse of law in conjunction with Article 56(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 54(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-277/12: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Café do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Caffè KIMBO — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Relative grounds for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Café do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)
   (Case T-277/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Caffè KIMBO - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Relative grounds for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 129/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Café do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy) (represented by: M. Mostardini, G. Galimberti and F. Melluci, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2012 (Case R 1017/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Café do Brasil SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bimbo, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case T-282/08: Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/16

         Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung v Commission
   (Case T-282/08)
   (2008/C 247/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: H. Wollmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Pursuant to Article 231(1) EC, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 1625 final of 30 April 2008 (No C 56/2006, ex NN 77/2006 — Privatisation of the Bank Burgenland) in its entirety;

               —

               Pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2008) 1625 final of 30 April 2008 in which the Commission decided that the State aid which Austria granted in contravention of Article 88(3) EC to the Versicherungsgesellschaft Grazer Wechselseitige Versicherung AG and the GW Beteiligungserwerbs- und -verwaltungsGmbH in the context of the privatisation of the HYPO Bank Burgenland AG is incompatible with the common market.
   In support of its action the applicant claims first that the Commission misapplied Article 87(1) EC in a number of respects. In particular it argues in that regard that there are several indications that the market value of the privatised bank at the time of the sale was significantly lower than the purchase price offered by the applicant, meaning that it was not given preferential treatment when the sale took place.
   Moreover, it is claimed that the defendant misapplied the private vendor test. In that regard the applicant asserts that the Commission's argument that it was impermissible in the context of the decision to award aid to take into account the legal guarantee (‘Ausfallhaftung’) by the Land of Burgenland for certain liabilities of the privatised bank is wrong. Furthermore, the applicant claims in that context that the Commission proceeds not from the model of a genuine private sector investor but from the fiction of a seller prepared to assume a 100 % risk.
   In addition, the applicant argues that the Commission has not proved that the applicant's offer was nominally worse than the offer of the competing bidder after all the necessary adjustments were carried out.
   In the alternative, the applicant argues that the Commission failed, in assuming there to be a State aid, to examine its compatibility with the common market in the light of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the reasoning of the contested decision is deficient in a number of respects.


title: Case C-500/12: Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-500/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/30
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-321/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 4 July 2002 in the proceedings between Finanzamt Rendsburg and Detlev Harbs

text:
C 289/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.11.2002
3.  Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/                             ment, it would be possible to schedule working
    EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC and Clause 4                            time (potential working time), if the length of
    of the Framework Agreement on part-time work to be                                prior notice of a job placement should be less
    construed as meaning that it constitutes objectively                              than
    unjustified unequal treatment if, in the case of part-
    timers, on the assumption that the vast majority of them                          (a)   14 days or
    are women (approximately 90 % women and 10 % men),
    an employer expressly rules out an agreement on the                               (b) a reasonable amount of time?
    positioning and amount of working time, whereas in the
    case of full-time workers, on the assumption that women
    are not in that same majority, both the amount and, to
    some extent, the allocation of working time are already
    laid down by statute or collective agreement?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                       hof by order of that Court of 4 July 2002 in the
4.  Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/              proceedings between Finanzamt Rendsburg and Detlev
    EEC and Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC and Clause 4                                          Harbs
    together with Clause 1(b) (facilitation of the development
    of part-time work) of the Framework Agreement on part-                                    (Case C-321/02)
    time work to be construed as meaning that in order to
    compensate for objectively unjustified unequal treatment                                  (2002/C 289/16)
    it is necessary and permissible
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    A      with regard to the amount of working time, to               European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
           presume a definite amount and, if so, to presume            (Federal Finance Court) of 4 July 2002, received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 13 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                       the proceedings between Finanzamt Rendsburg and Detlev
           1.   normal working time, or                                Harbs on the following question:
                                                                       Where the owner of a farm:
           2.   the maximum length of weekly working time
                actually worked, unless the employer can prove         —    gives up part of his farm (the entire dairy cow operation)
                that this was due to unusually high demand for              and leases the property necessary for that operation to
                work at that particular time, or                            another farmer;
                                                                       —    and continues to farm on a not insignificant scale after
           3.   the demand ascertained at the date of con-                  granting the lease,
                clusion of the contract of employment, or
                                                                       may he treat the turnover from the lease — like the rest of his
                                                                       turnover — under the flat-rate scheme for farmers (Article 25
           4.   average weekly working time, and                       of Directive 77/388/EEC), or is the turnover from the lease
                                                                       taxable under the general rules?
    B      with regard to the positioning of working time, in
           order to compensate for the extra burden on the
           worker caused by flexibility and for the benefit
           afforded to the employer, to award the worker
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
                                                                       Augsburg by order of that Court of 7 March 2002 in the
           1.   a ‘reasonable’ supplement on the hourly wage,          proceedings between Eva-Maria Weller and Deutsche
                determined in the light of the individual cir-                         Angestellten-Krankenkasse
                cumstances in question, or
                                                                                (Case C-322/02)
           2.   a minimum supplement equal to that paid to                                    (2002/C 289/17)
                full-time workers who work more than normal
                working hours (eight hours a day or forty
                hours a week), or                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Augsburg
                                                                       (Social Court, Augsburg) of 7 March 2002, received at the
           3.   irrespective of the amount of time worked,             Court Registry on 16 September 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                compensation for time not remunerated as               in the proceedings between Eva-Maria Weller and Deutsche
                working time during which, under the agree-            Angestellten-Krankenkasse on the following questions: