title: Case C-447/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Salzburg (as a commercial court) by order of 27 November 2000 in the application for company registration by Holto Limited

text:
C 28/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.1.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                    If either Question III or Question IV is answered in the
Salzburg (as a commercial court) by order of 27 Novem-                     affirmative:
ber 2000 in the application for company registration by
                           Holto Limited                                   V.    Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty prohibit the
                                                                                application of a domestic conflict of laws rule which
                                                                                determines the legal capacity of a company in accordance
                          (Case C-447/00)                                        with the law of the State in which the company has the
                                                                                actual seat of its main administration (the seat theory),
                                                                                even if, as a result, a company that has been effectively
                                                                                constituted under English law but merely has its seat as
                           (2001/C 28/46)
                                                                                declared in its constitution in England and does not carry
                                                                                on any business there is refused recognition as a legal
                                                                                person and consequently refused entry in the companies
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           register (commercial register)?
European Communities by the Landesgericht Salzburg (as a
commercial court) by order of 27 November 2000, received
at the Court Registry on 4 December 2000, in the application
for company registration by Holto Limited for a preliminary
ruling on the following questions:
                                                                           Appeal brought on 4 December 2000 by the Commission
I.     Is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43         of the European Communities against that part of the
       of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that a                judgment delivered on 27 September 2000 by the Second
       branch may exist even if a company does not have a                  Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
       principal place of business within the meaning of Article           First Instance of the European Communities in Case
       48 of the EC Treaty at any other place, where it carries            T-184/97 (1) between BP Chemicals Ltd and the Com-
       out at least an essential part of its business activity?            mission of the European Communities, supported by the
                                                                           French Republic, which annuls Commission Decision SG
                                                                           (97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 (2) concerning an aid scheme
If so:                                                                     for biofuels in France in so far as that decision relates to
                                                                           measures applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether (‘ETBE’)
                                                                                sector
II.    Is the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43
       of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      (Case C-448/00 P)
       requirement of establishment is fulfilled if a company
       merely has its seat as declared in its constitution in a                                      (2001/C 28/47)
       Member State in which it was effectively constituted and
       does not carry on any business there?                               An appeal against that part of the judgment delivered on
                                                                           27 September 2000 by the Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                           Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
If so:                                                                     Communities in Case T-184/97 between BP Chemicals Ltd
                                                                           and the Commission of the European Communities, supported
                                                                           by the French Republic, which annuls Commission Decision
III. Does the establishment of an Austrian branch of a                     SG (97) D/3266 of 9 April 1997 concerning an aid scheme
       company that has been effectively constituted under                 for biofuels in France in so far as that decision relates to
       English law but merely has its seat as declared in its              measures applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether (‘ETBE’)
       constitution in England and does not carry on any                   sector, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       business there belong to the rights under the second                Communities on 4 December 2000 by the Commission of
       sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43 and by                the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, a
       Article 48 of the EC Treaty?                                        member of the Legal Service, acting as agent, assisted by
                                                                           Nicholas Khan, Barrister, of the Inner Temple, with an address
                                                                           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
If any of Questions I, II or III are answered in the negative:             Centre Wagner.
                                                                           The Appellant claims that the Court should:
IV. Does the establishment of an Austrian branch and its
       entry in the Austrian companies register (commercial                1.    Annul that part of the judgment of the Court of First
       register) by a company effectively constituted under                      Instance of 27 September 2000 handed down in Case
       English law which merely has its seat as declared in its                  T-184/97, BP Chemicals Ltd v Commission, which
       constitution in England and does not carry on any                         annulled Commission Decision SG (97) D/3266 of
       business there belong to the rights covered by the first                  9 April 1997 concerning an aid scheme for biofuels in
       sentence of the first paragraph of Article 43 and by                      France in so far as that decision relates to measures
       Article 48 of the EC Treaty?                                              applicable to the ethyl-tertiobutyl-ether (‘ETBE’) sector;


title: Case C-363/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works supported by the interveners (1) ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — by order of that court of 30 July 2004 in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works supported by the interveners (1) ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’
   (Case C-363/04)
   (2004/C 284/14)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State, 4th Section, Greece) of 30 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 20 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mikaniki AE against the Ministry of Culture and against the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and Public Works and against the interveners (1) ‘Sindesmos Teknikon Etaireion Anoteron Taxeon’ (STEAT) and (2) ‘Enklidis ATE’ on the following questions:

               (1)

               Must Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a tendering procedure such as that described in the grounds hereof (offers not accompanied by a justificatory report, indicating the specific discount percentages applied to each group of prices and verification as to whether discounts are at a normal level), the contracting authority is required to give a specific content to the document in which it requests a bidder to provide explanations concerning an offer which has been adjudged abnormally low in regard to a threshold determined by application of a mathematical method having characteristics analogous to those of the mathematical method described in the grounds of this order?

               (2)

               If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is it sufficient, in order to satisfy the requirements of the abovementioned provision of Directive 93/37/EEC, for the document to mention the specific discount offered by the tenderer for one or more groups of prices adjudged by the contracting authority to be problematic or must the latter also indicate the reasons why it regards such discount as problematic by providing a reasoned appraisal concerning the maximum cost for carrying out the relevant works?


title: Case C-219/09: Order of the President of the Court of 15 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Vitra Patente AG v High Tech srl

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano — Italy) — Vitra Patente AG v High Tech srl
   (Case C-219/09) (1)

   2011/C 211/38
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-90/09: Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Explotatie v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/31

         Action brought on 27 February 2009 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Explotatie v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-90/09)
   2009/C 102/46
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Mojo Concerts BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Amsterdam Music Dome Explotatie BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by S. Beeston, Lawyer)

      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 applicants seek the annulment of the Commission Decision of 21 October 2008 on the investment of the municipality of Rotterdam in the Ahoy complex (State aid C 4/2008 (ex N 97/2007, ex CP 91/2007).
   They submit that the Commission’s reasoning in the contested decision discloses a manifestly incorrect assessment and that the steps in the reasoning are incorrect and/or inadequately substantiated.
   First, the applicants argue that the value of the rent and of the shares in Ahoy which have been established are not in accordance with market value. Furthermore, an investment which only leads to value retention can indeed produce an advantage. Moreover, when determining the value of the rent and of the shares, no account was taken of the investment. According to the applicants, the contractual restrictions between the municipality and the operator would not prevent the investment from producing added value. Finally, the benefit-sharing arrangement does not provide an additional guarantee of the market conformity of the transactions.
   The applicants also allege breach of procedure and defective reasoning: the arguments submitted by them were not, or only inadequately, taken into consideration by the Commission in the contested decision; parts of the file were wrongly classified as confidential; and the applicants were not informed of all the elements in the file, which constitutes an infringement of the right to be heard.


title: Case F-138/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Schwander v Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/62

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Schwander v Commission
   (Case F-138/11) (1)

   (2016/C 098/81)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 24.


title: Case T-561/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2009 — Bactria and Gutknecht v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/39

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2009 — Bactria and Gutknecht v Commission
   (Case T-561/08) (1)

   2010/C 11/74

      Language of the case: English

   The President of Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed in part from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-376/09: Action brought on 25 September 2009 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/57

         Action brought on 25 September 2009 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA)
   (Case T-376/09)
   2009/C 282/107
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Glenton España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Admit the application;

               —

               Overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in case R 594/2008-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “POLO SANTA MARIA”, for goods and services in classes 18, 25, 36, 41 and 43

      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: Benelux trade mark registration of the figurative mark “device of a silhouette of a polo player” for goods in classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled partially the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned


title: Case C-248/12 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2012 by Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2012 in Case T-453/10: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/9

         Appeal brought on 22 May 2012 by Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 6 March 2012 in Case T-453/10: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v European Commission
   (Case C-248/12 P)
   2012/C 200/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (represented by: K.J. Brown, Departmental Solicitor's office, D. Wyatt QC, V. Wakefield, Barristers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               the Order of the General Court be set aside;

               —

               DARD's action for annulment be declared admissible and the case be referred back to the General Court so that it may examine the substance of DARD's action for annulment;

               —

               the Commission be ordered to pay DARD's costs of the present proceedings and those arising at first instance relating to the plea of inadmissibility; and

               —

               costs be reserved as to the remainder.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      First plea, that the General Court failed to identify and apply the proper legal test, namely that Piraiki-Patraiki and Dreyfus are merely examples of a broader principle of law, namely that a Union measure will be treated as of direct concern to those whose legal situation it affects where its implementation in that way is a ‘foregone conclusion’, or any other possibility is ‘purely theoretical’, or it is ‘obvious’ that any discretionary power will be exercised in a certain way. That principle must be applied to the facts of each case.

      Second plea, that the General Court committed an error of law, and acted contrary to the principle of legal certainty, in its attempts to limit the scope of Piraiki-Patraiki and Dreyfus (in particular by restricting the former to cases in which the Union measure is adopted in response to a request by a Member State, and by restricting the latter to cases with a ‘very specific factual context’).

      Third plea, that the General Court committed an error of law in narrowing the test for standing under Article 263. This is contrary to the proper interpretation of Article 263 as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular by reference to its purpose and to the principle of effective judicial protection.

      Fourth plea, that if the General Court had applied the correct legal principles to the present case, DARD would have been found to be ‘directly concerned’. In particular, the constitutional position in the United Kingdom is that the devolved administration — in this case DARD — is directly responsible for bearing the cost of the disallowance. The chain of causation is direct and automatic. The United Kingdom devolutionary arrangements are well established (see Case C-428/07 Horvath [2009] ECR 1-6355) and any argument that their application is less than a ‘foregone conclusion’ should fail.


title: Case C-237/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Cagliari by order of that court of 14 May 2004 in the case of Enirisorse SpA and Sotacarbo SpA

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Cagliari by order of that court of 14 May 2004 in the case of Enirisorse SpA and Sotacarbo SpA
   (Case C-237/04)
   (2004/C 201/22)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari (Cagliari District Court) of 14 May 2004, received at the Court Registry on 7 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Enirisorse SpA and Sotacarbo SpA on the following questions:

               (a)

               Does Article 33 of Law [273/02] implement an incompatible State aid in favour of Sotacarbo SpA., within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty and does it do so, moreover, unlawfully in so far as the Commission was not informed of that aid, within the meaning of Article 88(3) EC?

               (b)

               Does Article 33 of Law [273/02] conflict with Articles 43, 44, 48 and 49 et seq. EC, concerning freedom of establishment and the free movement of services?


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-270/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/64)                                                      (2001/C 118/67)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-56/00: Commission of the                  from the register of Case C-270/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              European Communities v Austria.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-155/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-484/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/65)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/68)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 10 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-155/00: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Italy.                                         from the register of Case C-484/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/00 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-320/96 P (1)
                        (2001/C 118/66)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/69)
By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 14 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-186/00: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil              from the register of Case C-320/96 P: European Broadcasting
Division)]: Boston Scientific Ltd and Others v Cordis Corpor-         Union v Métropole Té1évision SA and Others.
ation and Cordis (UK) Ltd.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case C-505/16 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Modification of the form of order sought — Statement submitted in the name and on behalf of the deceased applicant)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/8

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2017 — Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-505/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Modification of the form of order sought - Statement submitted in the name and on behalf of the deceased applicant))
   (2017/C 300/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Mahnič Bruni and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by S. Bartelt and J. Norris-Usher, and then by E. Paasivirta and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mrs Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.


title: Case C-298/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Land Berlin v Alexander Mai

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2010 — Land Berlin v Alexander Mai
   (Case C-298/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Berlin

      Defendant: Alexander Mai

      Question referred

   Taking into account the right of parties to a collective agreement to collective bargaining which is guaranteed by primary law (now Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ‘CFREU’), does a collective pay agreement for public sector employees, which, as in Paragraph 27 of the Bundes-angestelltentarifvertrag (Federal collective agreement for contractual public sector employees, ‘BAT’) in conjunction with the Vergütungstarifvertrag (collective pay agreement) No 35 under the BAT, determines basic pay in individual salary groups by age categories, infringe the primary-law prohibition of age discrimination (now Article 21(1) of the CFREU) as given expression by Directive 2000/78/EC? (1)

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-288/13 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by AK against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 March 2013 in Case F-91/10, AK v Commission

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/11

         Appeal brought on 24 May 2013 by AK against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 March 2013 in Case F-91/10, AK v Commission
   (Case T-288/13 P)
   2013/C 233/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: AK (Esbo Finland) (represented by D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare and rule that,

                           —

                           The judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2012 in Case F-91/10 AK v European Commission is set aside;

                           —

                           The Commission is ordered to pay the applicant:

                                       —

                                       compensation for the loss of a 95 % chance of being promoted to grade A4 in promotion year 2003, 2005 or at the latest 2007, in the sum of EUR 375 295, EUR 204 996 and EUR 90 130 respectively, including therein the lump sum of EUR 4 000 already paid, in addition to the regularisation of her pension rights by payment of the corresponding contributions;

                                       —

                                       EUR 55 000, in addition to the EUR 15 000 already paid, in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the continuation of her irregular administrative situation despite, in particular, the judgments of 20 April 2005 and 6 October 2009 of the General Court and of 13 December 2007 of the European Civil Service Tribunal and the decision of 23 April 2007 of the Appointing Authority to uphold the claim brought by the applicant on 4 September 2006;

                           —

                           The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law since the CST based its findings on career development reports (CDRs) which it excluded from the file itself (relating to paragraphs 55, 56, 73 and 87 of the judgment under appeal).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the non-pecuniary damage and an infringement of the principle of proportionality, since the CST reduced the assessment of the non-pecuniary damage to EUR 15 000 taking account solely of the particularly extensive delay in drawing up the various CDRs and by restricting the extent of the non-pecuniary damage to the period during which the applicant was still working, without taking other parameters into account such as the applicant’s state of uncertainty and worry as regards her professional future beyond the period during which she was still working (relating to paragraphs 63 and 83 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the damage due to the loss of a chance to be promoted and an infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the CST was not entitled to conclude, solely on the basis of the merit points and promotion thresholds, that the probability that the applicant would be promoted was low, on the one hand, and the CST assessed the damage of a loss of a chance to be promoted at EUR 4 000 as a lump sum without giving the least explanation as regards the reasoning which led it to that conclusion, on the other (relating to paragraphs 71 to 73 and 89 et seq. of the judgment under appeal).


title: Case C-263/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Edwin Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Elio Fiorucci (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 52(2)(a) — Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a right to a name under national law — Review by the Court of Justice of the interpretation and application of national law by the General Court — Power of the General Court to alter the decision of the Board of Appeal — Limits)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Edwin Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Elio Fiorucci
   (Case C-263/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52(2)(a) - Community word mark ELIO FIORUCCI - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a right to a name under national law - Review by the Court of Justice of the interpretation and application of national law by the General Court - Power of the General Court to alter the decision of the Board of Appeal - Limits)
   2011/C 252/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Edwin Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Rigatti, M. Bertani, S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, L. Rampini and J. Crespo Carrillo, Agents), Elio Fiorucci (represented by: A. Vanzetti and A. Colmano, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 in Case T-165/06 Elio Fiorucci v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by which the Court annulled, in so far as it contains an error of law in the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the Codice della Proprietà Industriale, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 (Case R 238/2005-1), relating to invalidity and revocation proceedings between Mr Elio Fiorucci and Edwin Co. Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Dismisses the claim for amendment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 May 2009 in Case T-165/06 Fiorucci v OHIM — Edwin (ELIO FIORUCCI), submitted by Mr Fiorucci;

               3.

               Orders Edwin Co. Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) each to bear its own costs and to pay jointly three quarters of the costs of Mr Fiorucci;

               4.

               Orders Mr Fiorucci to bear one quarter of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/10

         Removal from the register of Case C-322/03 (1)

   (2004/C 239/19)
   By order of 17 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-322/03: Commission of the European Commission v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-370/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 18 TFEU — Citizenship of the Union — Non-discrimination — Compensation for loss of abandoned immovable property outside the current borders of the Member State concerned — Citizenship condition — Lack of connection to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/28

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa
   (Case C-370/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 18 TFEU - Citizenship of the Union - Non-discrimination - Compensation for loss of abandoned immovable property outside the current borders of the Member State concerned - Citizenship condition - Lack of connection to EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 315/43
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre

      Defendant: Minister Skarbu Państwa

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland).

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013.


title: Case T-53/17: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2017 — Austrian Power Grid v ACER

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/61

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2017 — Austrian Power Grid v ACER
   (Case T-53/17) (1)

   (2017/C 277/87)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.


title: Case F-55/09: Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Maxwell v Commission

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/64

         Action brought on 26 May 2009 — Maxwell v Commission
   (Case F-55/09)
   2009/C 180/120
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Allan Maxwell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the claim for compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant during his leave on personal grounds taken to perform the duties of ‘EU Senior Adviser’ at the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), loss resulting from the failure to reimburse accommodation and education expenses.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 September 2008 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 132 900 by way of reimbursement for accommodation and education expenses which he incurred in the course of his duties as EU Senior Advisor at KEDO;

               —

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


title: Case T-200/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Avery Dennison v OHIM (AVERY DENNISON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AVERY DENNISON — Earlier national word mark DENNISON — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Avery Dennison v OHIM (AVERY DENNISON)
   (Case T-200/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AVERY DENNISON - Earlier national word mark DENNISON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal)
   2013/C 336/33
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Avery Dennison Corp. (Pasadena, California, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dennison-Hesperia, SA (Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 (Case R 798/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Dennison-Hesperia, SA and Avery Dennison Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Avery Dennison Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-440/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje, Gosselin Group NV (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — International removal services market in Belgium — Direct or indirect fixing of prices, market sharing and the manipulation of the procedure for the submission of tenders — Unlawful conduct imputable to the entity controlling the shareholdings — Definition of ‘undertaking’ — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Restriction of competition by object — Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States — Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — European Commission v Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje, Gosselin Group NV
   (Case C-440/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - International removal services market in Belgium - Direct or indirect fixing of prices, market sharing and the manipulation of the procedure for the submission of tenders - Unlawful conduct imputable to the entity controlling the shareholdings - Definition of ‘undertaking’ - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Restriction of competition by object - Guidelines on the effect on trade between Member States - Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2006) - Mitigating circumstances)
   2013/C 252/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, S. Noë and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje (represented by: D. Van hove, F. Wijckmans, S. De Keer and H. Burez, advocaten), Gosselin Group NV

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08 Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission, by which that court, in Case T-208/08, annulled Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) in so far as that decision finds that Gosselin Group NV participated in an infringement of Article 81(1) EC from 30 October 1993 to 14 November 1996, and, in Case T-209/08, annulled Decision C(2008) 926, as amended by Decision C(2009) 5810, in so far as it relates to Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls paragraphs 4 and 6 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 June 2011 in Joined Cases T-208/08 and T-209/08 Gosselin Group and Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje v Commission.

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje in Case T-209/08.

               3.

               Orders Stichting Administratiekantoor Portielje to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-209/08 and the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-386/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a horse) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing a horse — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a horse)
   (Case T-386/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing a horse - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 234/57
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Czychowski, A. Nordemann and A. Dustmann, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of 7 July 2008 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1730/2007-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a horse

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


               28.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/32

         Action brought on 16 August 2013 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-19/13)
   2013/C 347/13
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 August 2013 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul ESA Decision No 519/12/COL of 19 December 2012 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene), and order the defendant and any intervener to pay the costs;

               2.

               annul ESA Decision No 181/13/COL of 8 May 2013 (Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS, Oslo Vognselskap AS and Unibuss AS), and order the defendant and any intervener to pay the costs;

               3.

               order ESA (and any intervener) to bear the costs.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the express bus market between the central and southern regions of Norway.

               —

               The applicant filed a State aid complaint with ESA on 11 August 2006 and a second complaint on 8 September 2011 concerning aid to AS Oslo Sporveier.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case concerning the first complaint without a formal investigation on 21 June 2010. This decision was annulled by the EFTA Court on 22 August 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v ESA [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 266.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s decision of 28 March 2012 to open the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and the EEA Supplement thereto, on 5 July 2012.

               —

               By a decision of 19 December 2012, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. On 8 May 2013, the EFTA Surveillance Authority made a decision on alleged aid to Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS, Oslo Vognselskap AS and Unibuss AS. Neither decision has yet been published in the Official Journal or the EEA Supplement.

               —

               By this present action the applicant seeks to annul both decisions.

         The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

               in relation to the first decision (of 19 December 2012):

                           —

                           unlawfully classified a capital injection as in part existing aid and in part no aid and classified an annual lump-sum compensation as existing aid, and

                           —

                           infringed Article 61 EEA in relation to the use of accumulated negative tax positions against group contributions;

               in relation to the second decision (of 8 May 2013):

                           —

                           infringed its duty to open a formal investigation by unlawfully classifying transaction as existing aid and unlawfully classifying short-term liquidity loans and contracts awarded without competition as no aid, and

                           —

                           infringed its duty to open a formal investigation into guarantees granted without charging premiums, and long-term public infrastructure loans granted to AS Oslo Sporveier on the terms available to the municipality itself, by unlawfully classifying the measures as existing aid.


title: Case C-180/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia — grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 April 2012 — Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-180/12)
   2012/C 194/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia — grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stoilov i Ko EOOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the article — rolled-up strips out of non-woven fabric for the production of interior blinds — to be assigned the NC Code 5407 61 30 depending on the characteristics of the article as ‘woven fabric’ or the NC Code 6303 92 10 corresponding to its single intended purpose — for interior blinds — for the purposes of the tariff classification according to the Combined Nomenclature 2009, which is formed by Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 (1) of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, whereat the following is to be taken into consideration:

                           (a)

                           the term ‘made-up article’ within the meaning of note 7 to Chapter 63 (‘Other made-up textile articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile articles; rags’) in Section XI (‘Textiles and textile articles’) of the Combined Nomenclature 2009, interpreted in conjunction with point 2(a) of [Section A] of the general rules of nomenclature concerning the terms ‘incomplete or unfinished article’ having regard to the case mentioned in point (c) of note 7, the characteristics of the article in question in the current proceedings and the possibility that a single end-product is produced from it;

                           (b)

                           the question of whether the term ‘woven fabric’ according to Chapter 54, subheading 5407 61 30 of the Combined Nomenclature 2009 covers fabric strips, which, like the end-product forming their single intended purpose — interior blinds —, also comes with fixed edges on the long side and, to be more precise, in view of the express reference to that product in subheading 6303 92 10 of the nomenclature?

               2.

               Does a reasonable ground exist for the assumption that a legitimate expectation with regard to the tariff classification of the article arose for the declarant and obligated party due to the importation of the article and that, according to Article 71(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and with regard to the basic principle of legitimate expectations, the customs tariff number of the article which is stated in the customs declaration is to be applied if, according to the facts of the case in the main proceedings at the time of the making of the customs declaration, the following circumstances were existent:

                           (a)

                           With respect to a customs declaration which was made earlier of the same articles with the same customs tariff number, no samples were taken for analysis by the customs authorities after an examination of the articles recorded in a protocol, including an examination with regard to the tariff classification, and the conclusion was drawn that the articles were consistent with the information in the declaration;

                           (b)

                           no later examination took place after the allocation of the articles to five other customs declarations of the same articles with the same customs tariff number, which had also been made earlier, and, to be more precise, before and after the date of the protocol regarding the customs examination, in which it was established that the customs tariff number was correct?

               3.

               Is Article 243(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 with regard to the protection of the basic principle of legal effect to be interpreted as meaning that an appeal can only be lodged against the act according to Article 232(1)(a) of that regulation, if that act was issued due to a payment which was not made within the period prescribed, by means of which the amount of the import duty levied is established at the same time and it constitutes an enforcement order for the collection of duties according to the national law of the Member State?

               4.

               Are Articles 41(2)(a) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when an application for the gathering of evidence by means of an independent expert’s report, which was requested by the obligated party after its briefing in accordance with Article 221(1) of Regulation No 2913/92, was not expressly acknowledged by a customs authority and was not discussed in the grounds for later decisions, an unrecoverable infringement of the right to good administration and the right to a defence in administrative proceedings occurs, which can no longer be remedied in the court proceedings because the person concerned in the circumstances of the main proceedings only has the chance to prove his objections regarding the tariff classification of the article in the proceedings before the first-instance court by posing questions to the independent expert?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.


title: Case C-198/04: Action brought on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/4

         Action brought on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-198/04)
   (2004/C 168/07)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia and H. Stovlbæk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by reason of incomplete transposition, in regard to the profession of tourist guide, of Directives 89/48/EEC (1) and 92/51/EEC (2), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives and under the Treaty establishing the European Community;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The French legislation applicable to the profession of tourist guide makes no provision for a procedure for the recognition of qualifications in accordance with Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ L 19 of 24.01.1989, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 25).


title: Case C-230/05 P: Order of the Court of  27 April 2006  — L v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Harassment — Commission's duty to provide assistance — Liability — Refusal by the Court of First Instance to allow the examination of witnesses — Offer of supplementary evidence which did not exist at the closing of the written procedure — Refusal to withdraw an allegedly defamatory document from the file — Obligation to provide reasons — Principal of sound administration — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/14

         Order of the Court of 27 April 2006 — L v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-230/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Harassment - Commission's duty to provide assistance - Liability - Refusal by the Court of First Instance to allow the examination of witnesses - Offer of supplementary evidence which did not exist at the closing of the written procedure - Refusal to withdraw an allegedly defamatory document from the file - Obligation to provide reasons - Principal of sound administration - Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 178/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: L (represented by: P. Legros and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed, first, the action for annulment of the decisions of the Commission rejecting the request for assistance, access to documents and compensation and refusing to recognise an occupational disease and, secondly, the claim for damages for the loss suffered as a result of those decisions
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security Commissioner, by decision of 17 January 1996, in the case of Kelvin Albert Snares against the Adjudication Officer (Case C-20/96)

text:
No C 77/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           16 . 3 . 96
       the constituents referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) of              Travail ( Labour Court ), Nivelles, of 16 January 1996 ,
       Section I of Annex I ( for example, in the case of water          which was received at the Court Registry on 22 January
       with a low sodium content)?                                       1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vito Casano
                                                                         against ( 1 ) Institut National d'Assurance Maladie Invalidite
3 . How are the expressions 'properties favourable to                    and ( 2 ) Union Nationale des Mutualites Libres on the
       health' in paragraph 2 of Section I of Annex I and                following questions:
       'certain effects' in paragraph 1 ( a ) of Section I ( see also
       point 1.4.1 of Section II of Annex I ) to be differentiated
       from one another ?                                                1 . Where an authority in a Member State does not comply
                                                                             with Article 51 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
(') OJ No L 229, 1980, p. 1 .                                                No 1408/71 on the application of social security
                                                                             schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                             and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                             Community ( ] ), is the adjustment to the entitlement of
                                                                             the invalid worker affected to take effect from the date
Action brought on 19 January 1996 by the Commission of                       on which the invalidity benefit first became payable or
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                              from the date falling two years prior to the worker's
                                Belgium                                      application for rectification, as laid down by the
                                                                             national legislation of the Member State concerned, in
                           ( Case C- 18/96 )
                                                                             this case, Article 106 of the Law of 9 August 1963
                             ( 96/C 77/ 15 )                                 setting up and organizing a scheme for compulsory
                                                                             insurance against sickness and invalidity ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 January 1996 by the Commission of the European                        2 . Is it for the national legislation of each Member State to
Communities, representend by Hendrik van Lier and                            determine the limitation period applicable to claims by
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for                 migrant workers for invalidity pensions ?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971(11 ), p. 416 .
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should :
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91/338/EEC ( 1 ) of 18 June 1991 relating to restrictions          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
      on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
                                                                         Commissioner, by decision of 17 January 1996, in the case
      substances and preparations, the Kingdom of Belgium                 of Kelvin Albert Snares against the Adjudication Officer
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
                                                                                ( Case C-20/96 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                    ( 96/C 77/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               European Communities by a decision of the Social Security
in Case C-5/96 (2); the time limit for transposition expired             Commissioner of 17 January 1996 , which was received at
on 31 December 1992 .                                                    the Court Registry on 22 January 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Kelvin Albert Snares against the
O OJ No L 186 , 12 . 7. 1991 , p . 59 .                                  Adjudication Officer, on the following questions:
( 2 ) See Case C-5/96 above .
                                                                         1 . Is the effect of the terms of Articles 4 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 10 ( a ) of
                                                                             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                             on the application of social security schemes to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                        employed persons and their families moving within the
Travail, Nivelles, by judgment of that court of 16 January                   Community (*), as inserted by Regulation ( EEC ) No
1996 in the case of Vito Casano v. ( 1 ) Institut National                   1247/92 ( 2 ) with effect from 1 June 1992 , to remove
d'Assurance Maladie Invalidite and ( 2 ) Union Nationale des                 from the scope of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No
                          Mutualites Libres                                  1408/71 a benefit which prior to 1 June 1992 would
                                                                             have been accepted, in the case of a person who by
                           ( Case C- 19/96 )                                 reason of previous occupational activity was or had
                               96/C 77/16                                    been covered by the social security legislation of the
                                                                             relevant Member State, as falling within the scope of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Article 4(1 ), with the consequence that a person who
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                          after 1 June 1992 becomes entitled to such a benefit
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 77/9
      under the legislation of one Member State may not rely            Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1531/88 (') of 31 May
      on the provisions of Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )       1988 valid ?
      No 1408/71 in order to challenge a withdrawal of
      entitlement on the sole ground that the person resides in         (') Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
      the territory of another Member State ?                                 potassium permanganate originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                              China ( OJ No L 138 , 1988 , p. 1 ).
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1247/92 made within the powers granted by the
      Treaty of Rome, and in particular by Articles 5 1 and 235
      of that Treaty ?
(') OJ No L 149, 1971 , p . 2 .                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber —
                                                                        Tax matters ) of 4 October 1995 in the proceedings
                                                                        pending before that court between Fazenda Publica and
                                                                                Fricarnes SA
                                                                                ( Case C-2 8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/20 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
orders of that court of 10 January 1996 in criminal
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Second
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
                               Cannizzaro
                                                                        Chamber for tax matters of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                        Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
                 ( Cases C-24/96 and C-25/96 )                          4 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                             ( 96/C 77/ 18 )                            on 1 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
                                                                        Publica ( tax authorities ) and Fricarnes SA on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        questions :
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                1 . Are the 'charges' described, which have                      the
10 January 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry                   characteristics described above, contrary                   to
on 29 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in ciriminal                    Article 95 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
Cannizzaro . The questions referred by the Pretura                      2 . Are they to be regarded as charges having an effect
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the
                                                                              equivalent to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with                   Articles 9 and 12 of that Treaty ?
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).
                                                                        3 . Are they to be regarded as turnover taxes within the
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                                               meaning of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive (^ without
                                                                               prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( 2 ) or any
                                                                               other Community legislation ?
                                                                        (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 135 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 10 January 1996 in the
case of Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH & Co . v.
              Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof
                           ( Case C-26/96 )
                             ( 96/C 77/19 )                                     Removal from the register of Case C-263/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                      By order of 13 November 1995 the President of the Court of
Hamburg — Fourth Chamber of the Joint Chamber of the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Finanzgericht Hamburg for the Länder of the Free and                    from the register of Case C-263/94 : Commission of the
Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony and                             European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands .
Schleswig-Holstein — of 10 January 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1996 , for a
                                                                        H OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
preliminary ruling in the case of Rotexchemie International
Handels GmbH & Co . v. Hauptzollamt Ham
burg-Waltershof on the following question :


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-199/01 P: IPK-München GmbH against Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-199/01 P: IPK-München GmbH against Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeals - Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)
   (2004/C 118/17)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-:199/01 P IPK-München GmbH, established in Munich (Germany) (Avocat: H.-J. Prieß) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Grunwald) — two appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 IPK-München v Commission [2001] ECR II-779, seeking the partial annulment of that judgment — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 28.7.2001.

      OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.


title: Case T-904/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/33

         Action brought on 21 December 2016 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-904/16)
   (2017/C 063/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. De Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions of 11 May 2016 reassigning the applicant, as an administrator to the Translation Directorate pursuant to the settlement in Case F-33/15;

               —

               hold that the EESC committed a misuse of power and infringed its obligation to act in good faith towards the applicant in knowingly misleading her as to the scope of the agreement concluded between the parties on 4 February 2016;

               —

               order the EESC and the CoR jointly to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 266 TFEU, since the contested decision was adopted in manifest breach of the amicable agreement reached in Case F-33/15 Labri v EESC.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the applicant was deliberately misled as to the scope of the agreement reached between the parties and more specifically as to the two committees’ interpretation of the terms of that agreement.


title: Case C-293/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam) — Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem (Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Application ratione temporis — System of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a non-member country — Meaning of  incorrect certificate  — Burden of proof)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam) — Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem
   (Case C-293/04) (1)

   (Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Application ratione temporis - System of administrative cooperation involving the authorities of a non-member country - Meaning of ‘incorrect certificate’ - Burden of proof)
   (2006/C 131/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17) — Post-clearance recovery of duty resulting from a customs debt which arose before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 against an importer who submitted EUR. 1 certificates of origin indicating an origin of the goods which could not be established upon a subsequent verification
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, applies to a customs debt which was incurred and the post-clearance recovery of which was commenced before that regulation entered into force.

               2.

               Inasmuch as the origin of the goods referred to in a movement certificate EUR.1 can no longer be confirmed following subsequent verification, that certificate must be considered to be an ‘incorrect certificate’ within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000.

               3.

               The person who relies on the third subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, must adduce the evidence necessary for his claim to succeed. It is therefore in principle for the customs authorities which wish to rely on the beginning of the third subparagraph of that Article 220(2)(b) in order to carry out post-clearance recovery to adduce evidence that the incorrect certificates were issued because of the inaccurate account of the facts provided by the exporter. Where, however, as a result of negligence wholly attributable to the exporter, it is impossible for the customs authorities to adduce the necessary evidence that the movement certificate EUR.1 was based on the accurate or inaccurate account of the facts provided by the exporter, the burden of proving that that certificate issued by the authorities of the non-member country was based on an accurate account of the facts lies with the person liable for the duty.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.


title: Case C-298/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 23 May 2017 — France Télévisions SA v Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 23 May 2017 — France Télévisions SA v Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)
   (Case C-298/17)
   (2017/C 256/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: France Télévisions SA

      Defendants: Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must an undertaking that offers live streaming of television programmes online be regarded, on the basis of that fact alone, as an undertaking providing an electronic communications network used for the distribution of radio or television broadcasts to the public within the meaning of Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of 7 March 2002?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, can a Member State, without infringing the Directive or other provisions of EU law, impose an obligation for the distribution of radio and television services on both undertakings providing electronic communications networks and on undertakings which, without providing such networks, offer live streaming of television programmes online?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, it is open to the Member States not to make the ‘must carry’ obligation, on the part of service distributors not providing electronic communications networks, subject to all the conditions laid down in Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002, even though the fulfilment of those conditions is required on the part of network operators under the Directive?

               4.

               Can a Member State imposing a ‘must carry’ obligation for the transmission of certain radio or television services on certain networks impose, without infringing the directive, an acceptance requirement for the distribution of those services on those networks, including distribution online, where the service in question already distributes its own programmes online?

               5.

               With regard to distribution online, must the condition requiring a significant number of end-users of networks subject to the ‘must carry’ obligation to use them as their principal means of receiving radio and television broadcasts, set out in Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22 EC, be assessed in relation to all users viewing television programmes streamed live online, or only in relation to users of the site subject to the ‘must carry’ obligation?

      (1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).


title: Case C-453/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)

text:
19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/17
2. Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the              Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1)
     action.                                                           Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage
                                                                       Group Ltd (by counterclaim), on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        1. Is Article 81EC (ex Article 85) to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a party to a prohibited tied house agreement may rely
All the Member States are under a duty to transpose the                    upon that article to seek relief from the courts from the
Directive into mandatory national provisions in due time. The              other contracting party?
period provided for in Article 25 of the Directive expired on
31 December 1997, without Austria having                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes is the party claiming
                                                                           relief entitled to recover damages alleged to arise as a result
— restricted the time-limit for the granting of individual                 of his adherence to the clause in the agreement which is
     licences where there are special circumstances to a                   prohibited under Article 81?
     maximum of four months;
                                                                       3. Should a rule of national law which provides that Courts
— transposed into national law the maximum time-limit of                   should not allow a person to plead and/or rely upon his
     two months for decisions in the event of withdrawal,                  own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of
     amendment or temporary suspension pursuant to                         damages be allowed as consistent with Community law?
     Article 9(4) of the Directive;
                                                                       4. If the answer to Question 3 is that in some circumstances
— laid down an appropriate procedure for appealing pursuant                such a rule may be inconsistent with Community law
     to Article 9(4) and (6): the Constitutional Court has                 what circumstances should the national court take into
     established the failure to transpose (2) and is now rou-              consideration?
     tinely (3) refusing to deal with complaints addressed to it
     against decisions of the Telecom Control Commission,
     referring to the existence of a right to appeal to the
     Administrative Court, which, in its view, stems directly
     from Community law. However, there has not thus far
     been any Declaration from the Administrative Court
     confirming that it has jurisdiction. Nor can, in the Com-
     mission’s view, the right of appeal to the Administrative
     Court be regarded, contra legem, purely on the basis of the       Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the
     case-law of the Constitutional Court as sufficient for            judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third
     reasons of legal certainty.                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.
(2) In Declaration B 1625/98 of 24.2.1999 relating to a similar
    provision in a directive.                                                                   (Case C-456/99 P)
(3) Decisions of 11.3.1999 in complaint proceedings B 1637/98, B
    2175/98, B. B 1768/98 and B 1884/98.
                                                                                (2000/C 47/27)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
                                                                       1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              30 November 1999 by J, represented by Georges Vandersan-
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                 den and Laure Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against             service in Luxembourg at the office of Société de Gestion
Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan                 Fiduciaire, 24 Rue Beck.
against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC)
         plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-453/99)                             — Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           28 September 1999 in Case T-28/98;
                            (2000/C 47/26)
                                                                       — Consequently, grant the form of order sought by the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     appellant at first instance, and therefore annul the Com-
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                    mission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing the appellant’s
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 4 August 1999, which               place of recruitment as Brussels;
was received at the Court Registry on 30 November 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-28/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — ZZ v Council

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/16

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-28/11)
   2011/C 173/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision whereby the Appointing Authority of the Council refused to promote him to grade AD 12 under the 2010 promotion exercise, contained in Staff Note 80/10 of 26 April 2010.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Ask the Council to provide the reports on the former A officials promoted to the grade AD 12 that were considered under the 2010 promotion exercise, as well as the statistics on the average analytical assessment by first reporting officers that were submitted to the AD ‘Administrators’ Advisory Committee on Promotion;

               —

               annul the contested decision and, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-358/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Neumann v OHIM (Form of a microphone head grill) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark in the form of a microphone head grill — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Neumann v OHIM (Form of a microphone head grill)
   (Case T-358/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark in the form of a microphone head grill - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 247/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Georg Neumann GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2004 (Case R 919/2002-2) refusing to register, as a Community trade mark, a three-dimensional sign in the form of a microphone head grill.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

                  Orders Georg Neumann GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.