title: Case T-561/11: Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

         Action brought on 31 October 2011 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)
   (Case T-561/11)
   2012/C 6/40
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer Consumer Care AG (Basel, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 July 2011 in case R 1953/2010-1, and dismiss the opposition; and

               —

               Order the opponent to bear the costs and fees of both the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALEVIAN DUO’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6303201

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 786863 of the word mark ‘ALEVE’, for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.


title: Case T-460/07: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2010 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LIFE BLOG — Earlier national word mark LIFE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2010 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)
   (Case T-460/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LIFE BLOG - Earlier national word mark LIFE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Partial refusal to register)
   2010/C 51/59
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nokia Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, 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 intervening before the General Court: Medion AG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: P.-M. Weisse, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 2 October 2007 (Case R 141/2007-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Medion AG and Nokia Oyj

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nokia Oyj to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-226/09: Action brought on 9 June 2009 — British Telecommunications v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/24

         Action brought on 9 June 2009 — British Telecommunications v Commission
   (Case T-226/09)
   2009/C 193/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Telecommunications plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Robert and M. M. Newhouse, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 685 final of 11 February 2009 declaring incompatible with the common market the aid granted by the British authorities in favour of the applicant by means of Crown guarantee to BT Pension Fund (State aid No C 55/2007 (ex NN 63/2007, CP 106/2006)).
   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant claims that in concluding that the applicant has a selective economic advantage, the Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment incorrectly applying Article 87(1) EC and the notion of State aid. The applicant submits that the Commission failed to take into account the full economic and factual context in which the applicant acts.
   Second, the applicant contends that in concluding that the applicant enjoys a selective economic advantage because the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) do not contribute to the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) in respect of the pensions of BTPS members covered by the Crown guarantee, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and infringed the principle of equal treatment by failing to compare like with like. In the applicant’s opinion, the Commission failed to take into consideration differences between the private sector schemes covered by PPF and civil service-type scheme inherited by the applicant at the time of privatisation.
   Third, the applicant argues that the Commission erred in law and infringed the principle of legitimate expectations in re-characterising a measure which was not aid at the time it was granted as the ‘underlying reason’ why it should be considered to be an aid twenty years later because a legislative measure has been adopted in the meantime.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that in requiring the BTPS Trustees to contribute to the PPF, the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
   Fifth, it claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and failed to investigate as to whether the selective economic advantage alleged by the Commission distorts competition and affects trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   Sixth, the applicant argues that the Commission made a manifest error of fact and law in concluding that there existed a transfer of state resources.
   Seventh, it submits that, by failing to provide reasons for the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 253 EC.


title: Case T-223/16: Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/39

         Action brought on 5 May 2016 — Massive Bionics v EUIPO — Apple (DriCloud)
   (Case T-223/16)
   (2016/C 251/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Massive Bionics, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Galindo Martens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apple, Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States of America)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘DriCloud’ — Application for registration No 11 723 509

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 03/03/2016 in Case R 339/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-221/10: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Iberdrola v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/55

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-221/10)
   2010/C 179/94
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 1(1) of the Decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all of the costs arising from the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision which is the subject-matter of the present case is the same as in Case T-219/10 Autogrill España v Commission.
   The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case. In particular, the applicant claims:

               —

               that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the measure in Article 12(5) TRLIS constitutes State aid which is incompatible with the internal market, given that it did not take account of the positive effects resulting from that measure and ignored the beneficial effect of that measure for the attainment of objectives pursued by other rules in the Treaty;

               —

               that the Commission breached the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment by departing from the guidelines in the Communication on direct taxation and its administrative practice adopted in line with that communication;

               —

               that the Commission breached the principle of sound administration — which requires it to examine, in a diligent, detailed and impartial manner, all aspects relevant to the case — by not continuing the proceeding (as it has done in respect of extra-Community acquisitions) to establish the alleged selectivity of the measure and verify, before making a finding in that regard, the precise extent of the practical obstacles to an intra-Community commercial merger;

               —

               that the Commission has infringed its obligation to respect the scheme of the Treaty and to ensure the consistent application of the rules relating to supervision of State aid and those relating to other principles and freedoms contained in the Treaty such as the free movement of capital and the creation of the internal market;

               —

               that the contested decision lacks sufficient reasoning in relation to specific significant aspects of the Commission’s assessment of the measure’s selectivity and its effect on competition and trade between Member States.


title: Action brought on 6 December 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-381/95)

text:
3 . 2 . 96               EN I             Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 31 / 13
Dobelle , acting as Agents, with an address for service in           against a Member State for national legislation which is
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard Prince                 incompatible with the Treaty .
Henri
                                                                     (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 p . 12 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     18 September 1995 in Case T-548/93 , Ladbroke Racing
     Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities in so             Action brought on 5 December 1995 by the Commission of
     far as that judgment annuls the decision of the                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     Commission contained in the letter of 29 July 1993
                                                                                ( Case C-380/95 )
     rejecting Ladbroke 's complaint of 29 November
     1989 ,                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /25 )
— uphold the submissions put forward by the Commission               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
     at first instance .                                             the Court of Justice on 5 December 1995 by the
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities , represented by
                                                                     Maria Kontou Durande of its Legal Service, with an address
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gomez de la
                                                                     Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner
The French Government considers that the Court of First              Centre, Kirchberg.
Instance erred in law in a number of respects .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
In the first place , and principally, the French Government
considers that the Court's reasoning fails to take account of        1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
the case-law on the conduct of undertakings in the context                period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
of national legislation which leaves no room for autonomy                 necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /414/EEC
in such conduct .                                                         of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
                                                                          protection products on the market, the Hellenic
Where such conduct is required by statute, that is to say,                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
when there is no scope for autonomy as regards conduct                    Treaty and that Directive;
which may be the subject of a complaint, the application of
Articles 85 and 86 to the undertakings responsible must be           2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
excluded as long as the relevant legislation remains in
force .                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The French Government considers that when a complaint                Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 169 of the
based on Articles 85 , 86 and 90 of the Treaty and                   Treaty, the Commission requests the Court to declare that,
concerning both the conduct of undertakings and national              by failing to take the necessary steps within the prescribed
measures relevant thereto has been brought before the                period ( which expired on 25 July 1993 ) to transpose into
Commission, it is bound to ascertain whether the national             Greek law Council Directive 91 /414/EEC of 15 July 1991
measures leave some degree of autonomy to the                        concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
undertakings . If they do not, the Commission must reject             market ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
that part of the complaint which is based on Articles 85 and          obligations under the Treaty and the Directive .
 86 having to rule on the part of the complaint which
concerns the compatibility of the national measures with the          (') OJ No L 230 , 19 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .
Treaty . The Court of First Instance erred in law in its
reasoning, therefore, in deciding that the Commission
 should have completed its examination of the compatibility
 of the French legislation with the Treaty before rejecting the
 part of Ladbroke's complaint concerning Articles 85 and 86
 of the Treaty .                                                      Action brought on 6 December 1995 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
 In the second place , the judgment appealed against takes no
 account of the consistent case-law to the effect that natural                                ( Case C-381 /95 )
 or legal persons who have sought confirmation from the                                            ( 96/C 31 /26 )
 Commission, pursuant to Article 3 ( 2)b of Regulation
 17/62 , that a breach of those articles has occurred are not         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
 entitled to demand that a decision be made as to whether or          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 not the alleged breach exists .                                      6 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities , represented by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La
 Lastly, the judgment has the effect of negating the                  Roche, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Commission's discretion in deciding whether to take action           office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 / 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    graphics     cards         for   automatic data-processing
                                                                               machines ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or              3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 92/109/EEC ( 1 ), of 14 December                       Under which other customs tariff heading should
                                                                               products such as 'vista boards' ( 1 .) be classified ?
      1992 on the manufacture and the placing on the market
      of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of
      narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the provisions of that Directive and Article 5 of
      the EC Treaty;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 1 December 1995
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        in the case of Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical
                                                                                Limited
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                  Case C-383 /95 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                             ( 96/C 31 /28 )
in Case C-360/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
on 1 July 1993 .                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(') OJ No L 370, 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                               Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
( 2 ) OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.                                1 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                         on 7 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical Limited on the
                                                                         following questions :
                                                                         ( a ) Where, in the performance of an employment contract,
                                                                                an employee carries out his work in more than one
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     country, what are the criteria according to which he
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 November                            should be regarded as habitually carrying out his work
1995 in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs                          in one of those countries, within the meaning of
                  GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen                                 Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention ?
                           ( Case C-382/95 )
                              ( 96/C 31 /27 )                            ( b ) Is the fact that he spends most of his working time in
                                                                                one of those countries, or the fact that he spends more
                                                                                of his working time in another country or countries,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          decisive or significant in that regard ?
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 November 1995 , which was                   (c ) Is the fact that the employee resides or maintains in one
received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1995 , for a                       of those countries an office from which he prepares or
preliminary ruling in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik                      administers his work outside that country, and to
Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen on the                                  which he returns after every trip which he makes in
following questions:                                                            connection with his work, of significance in that
                                                                                regard ?
1 . Must Note 5 ( B ) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
      Tariff ( combined nomenclature 1988 to 1991 ) be
      interpreted as meaning that image processing, which the
      'vista boards' more particularly described in the grounds
      of the order can perform, is to be regarded as a 'specific
      function' within the meaning of that provision, that is to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
      say as a function other than data processing, so that such         des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of
      goods are not classifiable under heading No 8471 ?                 8 November 1995 in the case of Landboden-Agrardienste
                                                                                GmbH & Co . KG v. Finanzamt Calau
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :                                             ( Case C-3 84/95 )
      Must heading No 8543 ( in this instance : subheading                                              ( 96/C 31 /29 )
      No 8543 80 80 of the combined nomenclature 1991 ,
      subheading        No      8543 80 90    of   the   combined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      nomenclature 1988 to 1990 ) be interpreted as meaning              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des
      that the term '( other) electrical machines . . . having            Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court, Land of Brandenburg)
      individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere           of 8 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
      in this Chapter' covers products such as 'vista boards'             Registry on 8 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
       ( 1 .) even if such boards are by their nature capable of         case of Landboden-Agrardienste GmbH & Co . KG v.
       being used not only for image processing but also as               Finanzamt Calau on the following questions:


title: Case T-502/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/16

         Action brought on 18 September 2013 — ASPA v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (ARGENTARIA)
   (Case T-502/13)
   2013/C 352/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV (ASPA) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: K. De Winter and M. De Vroey, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 July 2013 given in Case R 1581/2011-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ARGENTARIA’ for goods and services in Classes 1 to 42 — Community trade mark No 159 707

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the cancellation proceedings closed following the surrender of the contested services by the CTM proprietor

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51 (1)(a) and 80 CTMR.


title: Case T-62/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PROTI SNACK — Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Concept of a provision to the contrary — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Bariatrix Europe (PROTI SNACK)
   (Case T-62/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTI SNACK - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
   2012/C 32/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS (Guilherand Granges, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2008 (Case R 740/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009


title: Case T-280/07: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Sepracor v OHIM — Laboratorios Ern (LEVENIA)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/57

         Order of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Sepracor v OHIM — Laboratorios Ern (LEVENIA)
   (Case T-280/07) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 328/88
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


C 258/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.8.98
     law and, in particular, of Decision 94/90. According to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Court of First Instance, it is for the national court
     Ð at least for as long as the proceedings remain
     pending before that national court Ð to determine, on           The award of the above allowances to women subject to
     the basis of its procedural rules, whether access to            conditions which are not laid down for men employees is
     specified documents should be granted. This means               contrary to the requirements of Article 119 of the EC
     that access to Commission documents will vary                   Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC.
     according to the legal system applied.
                                                                     Removal of that discrimination should have taken place
Ð Infringement of Article 33 in conjunction with
                                                                     on 1 January 1981, the date of entry into force in Greece
     Article 44 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice:
                                                                     of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117/
     the Court of First Instance failed to state adequate
                                                                     EEC. The Hellenic Republic harmonised its legislation
     reasons for the contested judgment, in that it omitted
                                                                     with the above provisions, but did not give it retroactive
     to indicate the manner in which Article 6 of the
                                                                     force. The failure to award the above allowances to
     European Convention of Human Rights, on which the
                                                                     married women employees retrospectively from 1 January
     Court of First Instance bases the principle of the
                                                                     1981 not only deprived them of part of their pay in the
     procedural autonomy of national courts, is infringed
                                                                     period from that date until the Greek legislation was
     in the event that it is the Commission which decides
                                                                     harmonised, but continues to produce unlawful effects to
     whether access is to be granted to documents drawn
                                                                     the extent to which those allowances are taken into
     up by that institution for the purposes of particular
                                                                     account for pension calculation purposes. Consequently it
     court proceedings.
                                                                     is contrary also to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC,
                                                                     which prohibits any discrimination in matters of social
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.                                     security on ground of sex, in particular as concerns the
(2) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.                                     calculation of benefits.
(3) Judgment of 5 March 1997 in Case T-105/95 WWF UK v
    Commission.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975, p. 19.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-187/98)                              An appeal brought on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the
                         (98/C 258/30)                               Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                     Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the
                                                                     Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                                      European Communities
before the Court of Justice on 18 May 1998 by the                                          (Case C-189/98 P)
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Dimitrios Gouloussis, of its Legal Service, with an                                        (98/C 258/31)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March
                                                                     1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
                                                                     supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Ð the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal, represented by
     under Community law, in particular under Article 119
                                                                     L. Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in
     of the EC Treaty, Article 3 of Directive 75/117/EEC (1)
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
     and the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), in so far as it has not repealed, with
     retroactive effect from the date of the entry into force
     of the above Community provisions in Greece, rules              The appellant claims that the Court should:
     which, in respect of the award to employees of a
     family allowance or marriage allowance, which are
     taken into account in the determination of the level of         (1) declare the present appeal against the judgment
     pensionable salary, laid down special substantive                   delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First
     conditions for married women employees which were                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/
     not laid down for married men employees.                            96 (1) admissible;


title: Case C-278/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance, Paris (France) lodged on 16 July 2009 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v Société MGN Limited

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance, Paris (France) lodged on 16 July 2009 — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v Société MGN Limited
   (Case C-278/09)
   2009/C 220/56
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande Instance, Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicants: Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez
   Defendants: Société MGN Limited

      Question referred

   Must Article 2 and Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted to mean that a court or tribunal of a Member State has jurisdiction to hear an action brought in respect on an infringement of personal rights allegedly committed by the placing on-line of information and/or photographs on an Internet site published in another Member State by a company domiciled in that second State — or in a third Member State, but in any event in a State other than the first Member State —:

               —

               On the sole condition that that Internet site can be accessed from the first Member State,

               —

               On the sole condition that there is between the harmful act and the territory of the first Member State a link which is sufficient, substantial or significant and, in that case, whether that link can be created by:

                           —

                           the number of hits on the page at issue made from the first Member State, as an absolute figure or as a proportion of all hits on that page,

                           —

                           the residence, or nationality, of the person who complains of the infringement of his personal rights or more generally of the persons concerned,

                           —

                           the language in which the information at issue is broadcast or any other factor which may demonstrate the site publisher’s intention to address specifically the public of the first Member State,

                           —

                           the place where the events described occurred and/or where the photographic images put on-line were taken,

                           —

                           other criteria?

      (1)  OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-38/12: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/31

         Order of the General Court of 26 November 2013 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER)
   (Case T-38/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2014/C 45/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pips BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. van den Berg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and D. Kämper, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2011 (Case R 2420/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG and Pips BV.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case T-224/17: Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/22

         Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)
   (Case T-224/17)
   (2017/C 202/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bio proof ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 4 368 239

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2521/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action in its entirety;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-309/13 ( OJ C 226, 3.8.2013, p. 23 )

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/53

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-309/13
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 226, 3 August 2013, p. 23
      )
   2013/C 325/86
   The notice in the Official Journal concerning Case T-309/13 Enosi Mastichoparagogon/OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA) is to read as follows:

         ‘Action brought on 7 June 2013 — Enosi Mastichoparagogon/OHIM — Gaba International (ELMA)
         (Case T-309/13)
         2013/C 325/86
         Language in which the application was lodged: English

            Parties

            Applicant: Enosi Mastichoparagogon Chiou (Chios, Greece) (represented by: A. Malamis, lawyer)

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

            Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gaba International Holding AG (Therwil, Switzerland)

            Form of order sought

         The applicant claims that the Court should:

                     —

                     Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 26 March 2013, in Case R 1539/2012-4;

                     —

                     Order the Office and other party (opponent before the Opposition Division and appellee before the OHIM’s Board of Appeal) to bear their own costs and pay those of the CTM applicant (applicant for annulment).

            Pleas in law and main arguments

            Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

            Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “ELMA” for goods in class 5 — International registration designating the European Community 900 845

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

            Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “ELMEX” for goods in classes 3, 5 and 21

            Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

            Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case F-16/09: Action brought on 24 February 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/41

         Action brought on 24 February 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission
   (Case F-16/09)
   2009/C 90/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jorge de Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision relating to his appraisal during 2007

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority’s decision of 21 November 2008 and, so far as necessary, the career development report covering the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007;

               —

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


title: Case C-280/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia N °4 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — Barclays Bank SA v Sara Sánchez García, Alejandro Chacón Barrera (Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Thirteenth recital in the preamble — Article 1(2) — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — National statutory and regulatory provisions — Contractual balance)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No4 de Palma de Mallorca — Spain) — Barclays Bank SA v Sara Sánchez García, Alejandro Chacón Barrera
   (Case C-280/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Thirteenth recital in the preamble - Article 1(2) - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - National statutory and regulatory provisions - Contractual balance))
   2014/C 194/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No4 de Palma de Mallorca

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barclays Bank SA

      Defendant: Sara Sánchez García, Alejandro Chacón Barrera

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Palma de Mallorca — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Consumer protection in relation to mortgage loans — Balance in the parties’ contractual rights and obligations — Principle of consumer protection — National civil procedure rules applicable to the procedure for enforcing a mortgage

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principles of EU law relating to consumer protection and a balance in the parties’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that statutory and regulatory provisions of a Member State, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are excluded from their scope, when there is no contractual term altering the effect or ambit of those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-542/10: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-542/10) (1)

   2012/C 235/22
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)   C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-181/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by judgment of that court of 3 March 2004 in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by judgment of that court of 3 March 2004 in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs
   (Case C-181/04)
   (2004/C 168/03)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, Greece) of 3 March 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Elmeka N.E. against the Minister for Economic Affairs on the following questions:

               (1)

               Does Article 15(4)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, to which Article 15(5) of that directive refers, concern the chartering of both vessels used on the high seas which carry passengers for reward and vessels used for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activities, or does it concern the chartering of vessels used on the high seas alone, when, in the latter case, Article 22(1)(d) of Law 1642/1986 appears wider than the directive as regards the category of vessels to which the chartering relates?

               (2)

               For the exemption from tax in accordance with Article 15(8) of the Sixth Directive, is the service required to be supplied to the vessel owner himself, or is the exemption granted also in respect of a service supplied to a third party, subject only to the condition that it meets the direct needs of the vessels referred to in Article 15(5), that is to say of the vessels covered by Article 15(4)(a) and (b)?

               (3)

               Under the Community rules and principles which govern value added tax, is it permitted, and subject to what preconditions, for tax to be charged for a past period where the person liable did not pass tax on to the other contracting party during that period, and, therefore, tax was not paid to the State, because of the conviction of the person liable, brought about by conduct of the tax authorities, that he did not have to pass on tax?


title: Case C-43/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the ozone layer — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union — Method of allocating allowances — Allocation of allowances free of charge — Application of gift tax to such an allocation)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
   (Case C-43/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the ozone layer - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the European Union - Method of allocating allowances - Allocation of allowances free of charge - Application of gift tax to such an allocation))
   (2015/C 138/25)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ŠKO-ENERGO s.r.o.

      Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a gift tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings if it does not respect the 10 % ceiling on the allocation of emission allowances for consideration laid down in that article, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case T-102/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Südzucker and Others v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/69

         Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Südzucker and Others v Commission
   (Case T-102/10)
   2010/C 113/102
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Südzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt (Mannheim, Germany), AGRANA Zucker GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Südzucker Polska S.A. (Breslau, Poland), Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA (Brussels, Belgium), Saint Louis Sucre SA (Paris, France) (represented by: H.-J. Prieß and B. Sachs)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

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

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2001 in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
2.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 31/11
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order on 24 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                                of 19 October 2001
1.    The application is dismissed.                                       in Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          (Action for failure to act — Communication under Article 6
                                                                          of Regulation No 2542/98 — Taking of position bringing
                                                                                infringement to an end — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau, residing in France, represented
                                                                          by M. Fauconnet, lawyer, with an address for service in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties (Agent: E. Gippini Fournier) — application for a declaration
                     of 19 September 2001                                 that the Commission refrained, contrary to the Treaty, from
                                                                          ruling on a complaint concerning alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81 EC — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA v Office for Harmonisation                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  19 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Community trade mark — Irregularity of the application                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
                         — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                          (2002/C 31/22)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA, having its registered office in
Darmstadt, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — action                                              INSTANCE
brought against Decision R 299/2000-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 concerning the                                     of 21 September 2001
registration of the term ‘OSTEOCALCIUM’ as a Community
trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European
composed of A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,                                      Communities
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 September
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision
                                                                                to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/24)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.01.
                                                                          In Case T-138/01 R: F, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                          P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application           The applicant does not substantially contest the facts men-
for suspension of operation of the decision of 4 December                 tioned by the Commission in the contested decision, and the
2000 of the appointing authority concerning the reassignment              pleas in its application relate to the amount of the fine
of the applicant to the translation service — the President of            imposed.
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 21 September
2001, in which he:
                                                                          The applicant submits that the fine is unlawful, essentially
1.    Dismissed the application for interim measures;                     since it violates the duty of proportionality and of equal
                                                                          treatment. It alleges that the Commission has acted unlawfully
                                                                          and in violation of Articles 3(g), 5, 81 and 253 of the EC
2.    Reserved the costs.
                                                                          Treaty by merely determining the basic amount of the fine on
                                                                          the basis of the applicant’s world-wide turnover and not taking
                                                                          into account the scope of its activities in the EEA. The
                                                                          categorisation used by the Commission for the establishment
                                                                          of the basic amount of fine and the setting of this amount
                                                                          violate the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corporation                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      violated the general principles of fairness and ‘non bis in idem’
                                                                          by not taking into account the sanctions previously imposed
                          (Case T-251/01)                                 on the applicant by the US competition authorities.
                           (2002/C 31/25)
                                                                          Finally, it alleges that, when examining possible mitigating
                                                                          circumstances, the Commission violated the principles of equal
                   (Language of the case: English)                        treatment and of proportionality by not making sufficient
                                                                          distinction between the Japanese producers, all being regarded
                                                                          as active members of the cartel. By disregarding the applicant’s
                                                                          passive role and ‘follow my leader’ approach, the Commission
                                                                          has disregarded its own Guidelines as well as the case law of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corpor-
ation, represented by Mr Koen Platteau of Linklaters & Alliance,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 18 July
      2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,                 Action brought on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/Graph-
      in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 12,2 million on the           ite Group, Inc. against the Commission of the European
      applicant, or, at the least, substantially reduce this fine;                                  Communities
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-252/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a Japanese manufacturer of graphite electrodes
and other graphite products. By the contested decision, fines
were imposed on the applicant and seven other companies for
having infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC
Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
graphite electrodes sector. The fine imposed on the applicant             European Communities on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/
was of EUR 12,2 million. Parallel proceedings relating to these           Graphite Group, Inc., represented by Mr Marc Seimetz and
agreements and practices have been undertaken in other                    Mr Jean Brücher of Brücher & Seimetz in association with
jurisdictions, e.g. in the United States.                                 Dechert, Luxembourg (Luxembourg).


title: Case C-585/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2016 — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 18 November 2016 — Serin Alheto v Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite
   (Case C-585/16)
   (2017/C 046/17)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Serin Alheto

      Defendant: Zamestnik-predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za bezhantsite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it follow from Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 (1) in conjunction with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32 (2) and Article 78(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that:

                           A)

                           it is permissible for an application for international protection made by a stateless person of Palestinian origin who is registered as a refugee with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and, before making that application, was resident in that agency’s area of operations (the Gaza Strip) to be examined as an application under Article 1(A) of the 1951 Geneva Convention rather than as an application for international protection under the second sentence of Article 1(D) of that convention, on condition that responsibility for examining the application was assumed on a basis other than compassionate or humanitarian grounds and the examination of the application is governed by Directive 2011/95?

                           B)

                           it is permissible for such an application not to be examined in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, with the result that the interpretation of that provision by the Court of Justice of the European Union is not applied?

               2.

               Is Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 in conjunction with Article 5 thereof to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law such as those at issue in the main proceedings, contained in Article 12(1)(4) of the Zakon za ubezhishteto i bezhantsite (Law on asylum and refugees, ‘ZUB’), which, in the version applicable at the relevant time, do not contain an express clause on ipso facto protection for Palestinian refugees and do not lay down the condition that the assistance must have ceased for any reason, and as meaning that Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, being sufficiently precise and unconditional and therefore directly effective, is applicable even if the person seeking international protection does not expressly rely on it, where the application is to be examined as an application under the second sentence of Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention?

               3.

               Does it follow from Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95 that, in an appeal before a court or tribunal against a decision refusing international protection which was adopted in accordance with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32, it is permissible for the court or tribunal of first instance, taking into account the facts of the main proceedings, to treat the application for international protection as an application under the second sentence of Article 1(D) of the Geneva Convention and to carry out the assessment provided for in Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2011/95, where an application for international protection has been made by a stateless person of Palestinian origin who is registered as a refugee with the UNRWA and, before making that application, was resident within that agency’s area of operations (the Gaza Strip), and, in the decision refusing international protection, that application was not examined in the light of the aforementioned provisions?

               4.

               Does it follow from the provisions of Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, concerning the right to an effective remedy incorporating the requirement of a ‘full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law’, interpreted in conjunction with Articles 33, 34 and the second paragraph of Article 35 of that directive and Article 21(1) of Directive 2011/95, in conjunction with Articles 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that, in an appeal before a court or tribunal against a decision refusing international protection which was adopted in accordance with Article 10(2) of Directive 2013/32, they allow the court or tribunal of first instance:

                           A)

                           to decide for the first time on the admissibility of the application for international protection and on the refoulement of the stateless person to the country in which he was resident before making the application for international protection, after requiring the asylum authority to produce the evidence necessary for that purpose and giving the person in question the opportunity to present his views on the admissibility of the application; or

                           B)

                           to annul the decision for breach of an essential procedural requirement and to require the asylum authority, taking into account the instructions on the interpretation and application of the law, to reconsider the application for international protection, inter alia by conducting the admissibility interview provided for in Article 34 of Directive 2013/32 and deciding whether it is possible to return the stateless person to the country in which he was resident before making the application for international protection;

                           C)

                           to assess the security status of the country in which the person was resident at the time of the hearing or, if the situation has been the subject of fundamental changes which must be taken into account in the person’s favour in the decision to be taken, at the time when the judgment is given?

               5.

               Does the assistance granted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) constitute otherwise sufficient protection, within the meaning of point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 35 of Directive 2013/32, in the relevant country within the relief agency’s area of operations, where that country applies the principle of non-refoulement, within the meaning of the 1951 Geneva Convention, in relation to persons supported by the relief agency?

               6.

               Does it follow from Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32 in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that the right to an effective remedy incorporating the requirement, ‘where applicable, [of] an examination of the international protection needs pursuant to Directive 2011/95’ compels the court or tribunal of first instance, in an appeal against the decision examining the substance of an application for international protection and refusing to grant that protection, to give a judgment:

                           A)

                           which has the force of res judicata in relation not only to the question of the lawfulness of the refusal but also to the applicant’s need for international protection pursuant to Directive 2011/95, including in cases where, under the national law of the Member State concerned, international protection may be granted only by decision of an administrative authority;

                           B)

                           on the necessity to grant international protection, by carrying out a proper examination of the application for international protection, notwithstanding the breaches of procedural requirements committed by the asylum authority when assessing the application?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).

      (2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).


title: Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Valentino Chesi, Margot Jost and Ralph Loebisch against the Council of the European Union (Case T-172/95)

text:
No C 315/ 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 11 . 95
Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Valentino Chesi,              1995 by Erich Biedermann, Walter W. Hedderich and
Margot Jost and Ralph Loebisch against the Council of the            Alfred Wienrich, residing in Germany, represented by
                       European Union                                Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,
                       ( Case T-l 72/95 )                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
                         ( 95/C 315/35 )
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     — annul the applicants ' pension statements for December
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC )
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994, inasmuch as that
Communities on 19 September 1995 by Valentino Chesi,                     regulation lays down a weighting for Germany at the
Margot Jost and Ralph Loebisch, residing in Germany,                     rate fixed for its capital , Berlin, only with effect from
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of                  1 July 1994 and not from 3 October 1990, and , in so far
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Court of
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 , Rue Glesener.               Auditors of 18 July 1995 rejecting the applicants '
                                                                         complaint,
The applicants claim that the Court should :                         — reinstate the applicants ' pension rights in full, weighted
                                                                         at the rate fixed for Berlin, with effect from 3 October
— annul the applicants' pension statements for December                  1990 ,
    1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC )
    No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 , inasmuch as that               — order the defendant to pay default interest on the
    Regulation lays down a weighting for Germany at the                  pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to
    rate fixed for its capital, Berlin , only with effect from           30 June 1994 , calculated in relation to the same period ,
    1 July 1994 and not from 3 October 1990 , and, in so far             at the annual rate of 10% ,
    as may be necessary, annul the decision of the Council of
    19 June 1995 rejecting the applicants' complaint,                — order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
— reinstate the applicants' pension rights in full , weighted        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    at the rate fixed for Berlin, with effect from 3 October
    1990 ,                                                           The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                     T-171 /95 .
— order the defendant to pay default interest on the
    pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to
    30 June 1994 , calculated in relation to the same period,
    at the annual rate of 10% ,
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
                                                                     Action brought on 25 September 1995 by BASF Lacke +
                                                                     Farben AG against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-175 /95
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case
T-171 /95 .
                                                                                ( 95 /C 315/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 25 September
Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Erich                         1995 by BASF Lacke + Farben AG, represented by
Biedermann, Walter W. Hedderich and Alfred Wienrich                  Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsanwalt, Meerbusch ( Federal
against the Court of Auditors of the European                        Republic of Germany ), with an address for service in
                          Communities                                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolters , 1 1 Rue
                       ( Case T-173/95 )                             Goethe .
                         ( 95/C 315/36 )
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
               (Language of the case: French)                        — annul the defendant's decision of 12 July 1995 , notified
                                                                         on 21 July 1995 , concerning a proceeding under
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European                  Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Case IV/33.802 — BASF
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        Lacke + Farben AG and SA Accinauto ) in so far as it
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September                     concerns the applicant,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2003 in Case T-217/01: Forum des migrants de l'Union européenne v Commission of the European Communities (Community financial support — Operating costs — Decision to terminate financial support — Principle of sound financial management — Interpretation of the conditions of support — Right to a fair hearing — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
21.6.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/39
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          of 9 April 2003                                  —     annul, on the basis of art. 230 of EC Treaty, Council
                                                                                Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer
in Case T-217/01: Forum des migrants de l’Union euro-                            adopted by the Council on the 21st of January 2003 to
   péenne v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                          the confirmatory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by
                                                                                fax on the 11 of December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of
                                                                                the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the
(Community financial support — Operating costs —                                 applicant’s counsel on January 23, 2003.
Decision to terminate financial support — Principle of sound
financial management — Interpretation of the conditions of
support — Right to a fair hearing — Protection of legitimate               —     require the respondent party to bear the costs of suit.
                            expectations)
                          (2003/C 146/70)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In Case T-217/01, Forum des migrants de l’Union européenne,                The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
having its registered office in Brussels (Belgium), represented            Case T-47/03 Sison against Council and Commission (1),
initially by E. Degrez and subsequently by N. Crama, lawyers,              pursues the annulment of the defendants decision not to allow
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                          him access to all the documents which formed the basis of the
A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and L. Parpala): Application for annul-                Council Decision 2002/848/EC ( 2), by which the applicant
ment of the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2001 to                       himself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the
terminate the financial support granted to the applicant under             list pertinent to Article 2(3) of Regulation 2580/2001 ( 3), as
Article A0-3040 of the Community budget, the Court of First                well as access to any information regarding which Member
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,               States provided documents mentioned in the contested
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-               Decision. The applicant also asked to be informed about the
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 April 2003,           rules and criteria applied by the Council regarding sensitive
in which it:                                                               documents that shall be made public following Article 9,
                                                                           point 6, of Regulation 1049/2001 ( 4).
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the          The Council’s position was based on Article 4(a), first and third
       defendant.                                                          points, of the Regulation 1049/2001. According to the
                                                                           defendant, the disclosure of information with regard to
                                                                           combatting terrorism, which is in the possession of the
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                               Member States authorities, could give the persons, entities or
                                                                           groups who are the subject of this information, the opportunity
                                                                           to threaten the efforts of these authorities and thus undermine
                                                                           the protection of public interest as regards public security.
                                                                           With reference to the Member States that provided sensitive
                                                                           documents, the Council stated that the ‘originator authority’ is
                                                                           opposed to the disclosure of the requested information. About
Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison                        the rules concerning sensitive documents, the Council referred
          against the Council of the European Union                        to the Council decision 2001/264/CE adopting the Council’s
                                                                           security regulations.
                          (Case T-110/03)
                          (2003/C 146/71)                                  In support of its application, the applicant submits:
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     Failure of motivation and violation of the principle of
                                                                                sound administration.
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    —     Violation of the principles enshrined in Article 6 ECHR
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                       and especially of the right to be informed promptly, in a
Communities on 24 March 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,                       language which the applicant understands and in detail,
the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,                       of the nature and cause of the accusation, as well as of
Mr H. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.                                         the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-58/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligation — Directive 2003/110/EC — Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-58/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligation - Directive 2003/110/EC - Assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 79/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26)
   Operative part of the judgment of
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 24.3.2006.


title: Case C-671/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 December 2013 — VĮ ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ and Nemaniūnas

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 December 2013 — VĮ ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ and Nemaniūnas
      (Case C-671/13)
      (2014/C 71/16)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian

         Referring court

      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants in cassation: VĮ ‘Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas’ and Virgilijus Vidutis Nemaniūnas

         Other parties: Vitoldas Guliavičius and the bank ‘Snoras’, an insolvent public limited company

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19, (1) applied in conjunction with point 12 of Annex I to that directive, to be understood and interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State excludes from the guarantee depositors of a credit institution who possess debt securities (certificates of deposit) issued by that institution, that exclusion can be applied only in the event that the abovementioned certificates of deposit fully conform to (possess) all the features characterising them as financial instruments within the meaning of Directive 2004/39 (2) (having regard also to other measures of European Union law, for example, Regulation (EC) No 25/2009 of the European Central Bank), inter alia their negotiability on a secondary financial market?

                  2.

                  If the relevant Member State elects to transpose Directives 94/19 and 97/9 (3) into national law in such a way that schemes for depositor and investor protection are laid down in a single legal measure (a law), are Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19, applied in conjunction with point 12 of Annex I to that directive, and Article 2(2) of Directive 97/9, taking account of Article 2(3) of Directive 97/9, to be understood and interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for no protection (guarantee) scheme for the purposes of the abovementioned directives to apply to holders of certificates of deposit and of bonds?

                  3.

                  Having regard to the fact that under national legislation none of the possible protection schemes provided for in Directives 94/19 and 97/9 is applicable to holders of certificates of deposit and bonds issued by a credit institution:

                              (a)

                              Do Article 3(1), Article 7(1) (as subsequently amended by Directive 2009/14) and Article 10(1) of Directive 94/19, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that directive which defines the term ‘deposit’, display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, so that they could be relied upon by individuals before a national court to found their claims for payment of compensation against the insurer which has been established by the State and is responsible for making payment?

                              (b)

                              Do Articles 2(2) and 4(1) of Directive 97/9 display the necessary clarity, detail and unconditionality and confer rights on individuals, so that they could be relied upon by individuals before a national court to found their claims for payment of compensation against the insurer which has been established by the State and is responsible for making payment?

                              (c)

                              Should the above questions (3(a) and 3(b)) be answered in the affirmative, which of the two possible protection regimes must a national court choose to apply when deciding a dispute between a private person and a credit institution and involving the participation of the insurer, established by the State, responsible for administration of the depositor and investor protection schemes?

                  4.

                  Are Articles 2(2) and 4(2) of Directive 97/9 (in conjunction with Annex I to that directive) to be understood and interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the investor-compensation scheme is not applicable to investors who possess debt securities issued by a credit institution by reason of the type of financial instrument (debt securities) and having regard to the fact that the entity with insurance (the credit institution) has not transferred or used investors’ funds or securities without the investor’s consent? Is it relevant to the interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 97/9, as regards investor protection, that the credit institution which has issued the debt securities — the issuer — is at the same time also the custodian of those financial instruments (intermediary) and that the investors’ funds are not separated from other funds of the credit institution?

         (1)  Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5).

         (2)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).

         (3)  Directive 97/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22).