title: Case T-273/00: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Unindustria and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/16

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Unindustria and Others v Commission
   (Case T-273/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 86/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria) (Venice, Italy); Comitato «Venezia vuole vivere» (Venice); Siram SpA (Milan, Italy); Fiorital Srl (Venice); Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas (Venice); Grafiche Veneziane Srl (Venice); Cantiere navale De Poli SpA (Pellestrina, Italy); Aive Srl (Marcon, Italy); Bortoli Ettore Srl (Venice); Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA (Venice); Lorenzo Rubelli SpA (Venice); Tecnomare SpA (Venice); and Arsenale Venezia SpA (Venice) (represented by: A. Vianello, M. Merola and A. Sodano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Italian Republic (represented by: U. Leanza initially, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam and finally I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               3.

               The Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivire’, Siram SpA, Fiorital Srl, Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas, Grafiche Veneziane Srl, Cantiere navale De Poli SpA, Aive Srl, Bortoli Ettore Srl, Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA, Lorenzo Rubelli SpA, Tecnomare SpA and Arsenale Venezia SpA, in addition to bearing their own costs, are to pay the costs incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               The Italian Republic is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case T-171/11: Action brought on 21 March 2011 — Hopf v OHIM (Clampflex)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/35

         Action brought on 21 March 2011 — Hopf v OHIM (Clampflex)
   (Case T-171/11)
   2011/C 145/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hans-Jürgen Hopf (Zirndorf, Germany) (represented by V. Mensing, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2011 in Case R 1514/2010-4;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Clampflex’ for goods in Classes 5, 9, 10, 17 and 20

      Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the Community trade mark in question has distinctive character and is not descriptive

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case T-141/05 RENV: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to contract LIEN 97/2011 — Refusal of access — Fresh examination in the course of proceedings — Bringing of a separate action — Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/20

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
   (Case T-141/05 RENV) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to contract LIEN 97/2011 - Refusal of access - Fresh examination in the course of proceedings - Bringing of a separate action - Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 340/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005, refusing Internationaler Hilfsfonds full access to the file relating to the contract ‘LIEN 97-2011’

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing its request for access to the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011.

               2.

               Internationaler Hilfsfonds shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case C-655/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Panrico, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (EUIPO), HDN Development Corp. (Appeal — European Union trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 52 — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) — Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘krispy kreme doughnuts’ — National and international word and figurative marks containing the elements ‘donut’, ‘donuts’ and ‘doughnuts’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Dismissal)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber Chamber) of 2 March 2017 — Panrico, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (EUIPO), HDN Development Corp.
   (Case C-655/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - European Union trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52 - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘krispy kreme doughnuts’ - National and international word and figurative marks containing the elements ‘donut’, ‘donuts’ and ‘doughnuts’ - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Dismissal))
   (2017/C 121/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Panrico, SA (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), HDN Development Corp. (represented by: M. H. Granado Carpenter and L. Polo Carreño, abogadas)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Panrico SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-340/09: Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/15

         Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-340/09)
   2009/C 256/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2), (3), (4) and (5) of Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos, (1) in respect of certain zoos in the Autonomous Communities of Aragon, Asturias, the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castile and Leon, Valencia, Extremadura and Galicia:

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that, by the date laid down in the Directive, all the zoos in its territory were licensed in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and, in the cases of Aragon, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Cantabria and Castile and Leon, 4 of Article 4 of the Directive; and

                           —

                           by failing to order the closure of zoos, in accordance with Article 4(5) of the Directive, where they were not licensed;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain:

               —

               has failed to ensure that, by the date laid down in the Directive, all the zoos in its territory were licensed in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3 and, in the cases of Aragon, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Cantabria and Castile and Leon, 4 of Article 4 of the Directive; and

               —

               has failed to order the closure of zoos, in accordance with Article 4(5) of the Directive, where they were not licensed.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 94, p. 24.


title: Case T-287/03: Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           4.10.2003
The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the            The applicant states in that regard that the contested decision
facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought                replaces another decision which the Court of First Instance
before the Community court for a third time, yet the Com-                  of the European Communities annulled by judgment of
mission has still not properly completed what it ought to have             20 September 2001 (1).
done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether
ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose
of the original subsidised project are in conformity.                      In support of here claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                           following pleas:
( 1) ECR I-6831.
( 2) Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.                                            —      Breach of the rights of defence, given the absence of a
                                                                                complete file.
                                                                           —      Manifest error in the assessment of the facts and, in
                                                                                particular, in the assessment of the place of main
                                                                                occupation or habitual residence during the reference
                                                                                period. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the
                                                                                Commission ignored the fact that the applicant’s stay in
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                                  Brussels never exceeded the reference period and, further
Langarica against Commission of the European Com-                                 in the alternative, that it did not apply the ‘work done for
                              munities                                            another State’ exception in Article 4 of Annex VII to the
                                                                                Staff Regulations.
                          (Case T-283/03)
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-344/99 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2001] ECR-SC
                                                                                IA-183; II-833).
                          (2003/C 239/47)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde                     Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl
Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón                      against the Commission of the European Communities
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-287/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 239/48)
—      annul the Decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
       complaint seeking formal and definitive annulment of
       the decision withdrawing her entitlement under the                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
       Staff Regulations to the expatriation allowance and
       confirmation of her entitlement to that allowance and
       also to other related allowances; and
—      order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl,
                                                                           represented by M.A. Calabrese.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present action is brought against the decision whereby the
appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint seeking            —      annul the Commission’s letter of 30 April 2002 D/52107,
formal and definitive annulment of the decision refusing her                      COMP/G1/D(02)400 PI/cpb, of which the applicant has
entitlement under the Staff Regulations to the expatriation                       not had sight, whereby the Commission consulted the
allowance and confirmation of her entitlement to that allow-                      Italian authorities, inviting them to express their assent
ance, together with other related allowances, such as, specifi-                   or dissent to the release to a party other than the applicant
cally, the allowance for the costs of installation at her present                 of the documents of which the applicant has requested
place of work.                                                                    copies;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 239/27
—    annul the Commission’s letter of 3 February 2003 D/                      N 715/99, (ii) stated that, after each consultation, the
     50721, COMP/G1/D(03)142/PI/cpb, of which the appli-                      Italian authorities opposed disclosure and (iii) stated that
     cant has not had sight, whereby the Commission consult-                  the Commission had no power to grant the access
     ed the Italian authorities, asking whether they objected to              requested, and
     the Commission divulging to a party other than the
     applicant, in whole or in part, the documents of which             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
     the applicant has requested copies;
—    annul the facsimile letter of 10 July 2003, ref. SGB2/IS/          Pleas in law and main arguments
     D(2003)330251, whereby the Secretariat-General of the
     Commission (i) referred to the two instances of consul-
                                                                        The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
     tation in issue and refused access to the documents
     originating from the Italian authorities in the exchange           in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
     of letters preceding the adoption of the decision of
     authorisation without objections of the aid scheme                 (1 ) OJ C 146 of 21.06.03, p. 43.


title: Case F-26/09: Action brought on 27 March 2009 — B v Parliament

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/51

         Action brought on 27 March 2009 — B v Parliament
   (Case F-26/09)
   2009/C 153/98
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: B (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application that the Tribunal order the Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered, first, on account of the professional and psychological harassment which she was subject to and, secondly, on account of there being no internal administrative investigation by an independent body.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 by way of compensation for the harm (non-material harm, detriment to her political reputation and career, the undermining of her dignity and detriment to her health) which she suffered, first, on account of the professional and psychological harassment to which she was subject during her posting at the Parliament and, secondly, on account of there being no internal administrative investigation by an independent body;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-194/01: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 75/442/EEC — Concept of waste — European Waste Catalogue — Directive 91/689/EEC — List of hazardous waste)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-194/01: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Concept of waste - European Waste Catalogue - Directive 91/689/EEC - List of hazardous waste)
   (2004/C 118/16)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-194/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi), with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for a declaration that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and under Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

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

      (1)  OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.


title: Case C-643/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2013 in Case T-540/11 Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/29

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 11 September 2013 in Case T-540/11 Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission
   (Case C-643/13 P)
   2014/C 52/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel BV, M.H.H.M. Moonen (represented by: P.E. Mazel and A. van Beelen, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants request the Court to set aside the order against which the present appeal has been brought and to refer the case back to the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In conclusion, the order should be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities, which prejudiced the appellants’ interests, and on the ground of the General Court’s breach of European Union law.


title: Case F-113/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Balionyte-Merle v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/204/10 — Failure to include the applicant on the reserve list — Assessment of candidates’ general competencies — Assessment on the basis of performance in tests at the assessment centre — Consistency between the mark obtained and comments appearing in the competency passport)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/34

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Balionyte-Merle v Commission
      (Case F-113/12) (1)

      (Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/204/10 - Failure to include the applicant on the reserve list - Assessment of candidates’ general competencies - Assessment on the basis of performance in tests at the assessment centre - Consistency between the mark obtained and comments appearing in the competency passport)
      (2014/C 71/65)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Vilija Balionyte-Merle (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/204/10 and for annulment of the decision to reject the complaint.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Ms Balionyte-Merle to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013 p. 710.


title: Case C-436/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), by decision of that court of 1 November 2000 in the case of X and Y v Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)

text:
10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                            of that kind also contrary to the abovementioned regu-
Protodikio Rodou by judgment of that court of 10 July                          lation, because it constitutes discrimination as regards
2000 in the case of GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others                          maritime transport to a particular third country (or
against the Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou and the Greek                           particular third countries) and therefore a restriction on
                               State                                           maritime transport provided to that country (or those
                                                                               countries)?
                         (Case C-435/00)
                          (2001/C 45/14)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt-
                                                                         en (Supreme Administrative Court), by decision of that
                                                                         court of 1 November 2000 in the case of X and Y v
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
European Communities by judgment of the the Diikitiko
Protodikio Rodou (Administrative Court of First Instance,
Rhodes) of 10 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on                                       (Case C-436/00)
27 November 2000 for a preliminary ruling in the case of
GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others against Limeniko Tamio                                          (2001/C 45/15)
Dodekanisou (Dodecanese Harbour Fund) and the Greek State
on the following questions:                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
                                                                         of 1 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
(a)  Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 to              on 27 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a             X and Y v Riksskatteverket on the following question:
     Member State from imposing restrictions in respect of
     the provision of maritime transport services between
     Member States and third countries generally, even if those          In a situation such as that in the present case, do Articles 43,
                                                                         46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude the application of a Member
     restrictions are imposed without distinction on all vessels,
                                                                         State’s legislation which like the relevant Swedish legislation
     whether they are used by its own nationals providing
     services or by nationals of other Member States, and on             — has the effect that a capital contribution in the form of a
                                                                         transfer of shares at undervalue is taxed less advantageously if
     all passengers irrespective of nationality, or is it to be
                                                                         the contribution is to a legal person which is domiciled in
     interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a Mem-
     ber State from introducing restrictions only in respect of          another Member State and in which the transferor directly or
                                                                         indirectly has a holding or to a domestic limited company in
     the provision of services between another Member State
     and a third country, reserving in that way more favourable          which such a legal person has a holding, than would have
     treatment to domestic carriers who provide maritime                 been the case if there had been no such foreign proprietorial
                                                                         interests.
     transport to third countries compared with carriers who
     are nationals of the other Member States?
(b) May a Member State impose different (higher) harbour
     dues for the passengers of vessels which call at, or have
     as their final destination, a port of a third (non-European
     Union) country than the dues which are imposed on                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
     passengers whose destinations are domestic ports or                 gericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case
     ports in the other Member States of the European Union,             of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
     even if those dues in both the above cases are imposed                          against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
     on all passengers irrespective of their nationality or that
     of the vessels, or does a provision of that kind constitute
                                                                                (Case C-440/00)
     a restriction on the freedom to transport passengers to
     third countries because the higher dues might have an
     effect on the choice of routes, so that that provision is                                    (2001/C 45/16)
     inconsistent with Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(c)  If the answer is in the negative, is it possible for the            (Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2000, received at the Court
     harbour dues which are imposed on passengers whose                  Registry on 29 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
     destinations are ports of third countries to be differen-           the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co.
     tiated still further, according to the third country, on the        KG (Central Works Council of Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG)
     basis of the criterion of the distance of the ports or their        against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG on the following
     geographical location, or is a national legislative provision       questions:


title: Case C-62/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
26.4.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/19
      2.2. Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests           Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
            appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be        of the European Communities against the United
            compared? In particular:                                            Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
            (a)  is the answer affected by the fact that the
                 ultimate consumer/patient derives limited                                          (Case C-62/03)
                 financial advantage from the parallel trade and
                                                                                (2003/C 101/32)
            (b)  is account to be taken, and to what extent, of
                 the interests of social insurance bodies in
                 cheaper medicinal products?
      2.3. What other criteria and approaches are considered             An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
            appropriate in the present case?                             Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                         1)    declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
                                                                               to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(a), 1(e),
                          (Case C-61/03)
                                                                               1(f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of Council
                                                                               Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste ( 1), as
                         (2003/C 101/31)                                       amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
                                                                               1991 ( 2), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                               Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                      the Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                    European Community;
the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
L. Ström and X. Lewis, acting as agents, with an address for                   Ireland to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty by failing to provide the         Directive 91/156/EEC required Member States to bring into
      Commission with general data relating to any plan for              force such laws, regulations and administrative provisions as
      the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form                 are necessary to comply with that directive no later than
      resulting from the decommissioning operations of the               1 April 1993, and to inform the Commission forthwith.
      JASON reactor; and                                                 Article 2(2) thereof provides that Member States shall commu-
                                                                         nicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of
—     order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             national law that they adopt in the field governed by the
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          directive.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          As a result of an assessment of the national legislation
                                                                         communicated as transposing the directive the Commission
                                                                         found a number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United
The Commission is of the opinion that the United Kingdom                 Kingdom’s transposition and concludes that Articles 1(a), 1(e),
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37 of the             1(f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the directive have
Euratom Treaty to provide the Commission with general data               not been correctly transposed into the United Kingdom
relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in            legislation.
whatever form resulting from the decommissioning operations
of the JASON reactor, thus making it impossible for the
Commission to determine whether the implementation of                    (1 ) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
such a plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination         (2 ) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.


title: Case T-205/15: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/52

         Order of the General Court of 13 July 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)
   (Case T-205/15) (1)

   (2015/C 320/72)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-26/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium)) — Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others v Belgische Staat (Directive 98/70/EC — Quality of petrol and diesel fuels — Articles 3 to 5 — Environmental specifications for fuels — Directive 98/34/EC — Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Articles 1 and 8 — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations — National rules requiring petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market in the same calendar year also to place on the market a quantity of biofuels)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 31 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium)) — Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW and Others v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-26/11) (1)

   (Directive 98/70/EC - Quality of petrol and diesel fuels - Articles 3 to 5 - Environmental specifications for fuels - Directive 98/34/EC - Information procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Articles 1 and 8 - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Obligation to communicate draft technical regulations - National rules requiring petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market in the same calendar year also to place on the market a quantity of biofuels)
   2013/C 86/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Belgische Petroleum Unie VZW, Continental Tanking Company NV, Belgische Olie Maatschappij NV, Octa NV, Van Der Sluijs Group Belgium NV, Belgomazout Liège NV, Martens Energie NV, Transcor Oil Services NV, Mabanaft BV, Belgomine NV, Van Raak Distributie NV, Bouts NV, Gabriels & Co NV, Joassin René NV, Orion Trading Group NV, Petrus NV, Argosoil Belgium NV

      Defendants: Belgische Staat,

      Intervening parties: Belgian Bioethanol Association VZW, Belgian Biodiesel Board VZW

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Grondwettelijk Hof — Interpretation of Article 4(3) TEU, Articles 26(2), 28, 34, 35 and 36 TFEU, Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EC (OJ 1998 L 350, p. 58) and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) — National rules requiring petroleum companies releasing petrol and diesel products for consumption also to make available for consumption in the same year a quantity of bio-ethanol, pure or in the form of bio-ETBE, and fatty acid methyl esters (FAME)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, as amended by Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in accordance with the objective of promoting the use of biofuels in transport, set for each Member State by Directives 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, and 2009/30, requires petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market also to place on the market, in the same calendar year, a quantity of biofuels by blending them with those products, where this quantity is calculated as a percentage of the total amount of those products which they market annually, and where those percentages comply with the maximum limits set by Directive 98/70, as amended by Directive 2009/30.

               2.

               Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, read in conjunction with Article 10(1), final indent, of that directive, must be interpreted as not requiring notification of draft national legislation which obliges petroleum companies placing petrol and/or diesel fuels on the market also to place on the market, in the same calendar year, certain percentages of biofuels, where, after having been notified pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(1), the draft was amended to take account of the Commission’s observations on it, and the amended draft was then communicated to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/60

         Removal from the Register of Case T-108/02 (1)

   (2004/C 262/110)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 2 August 2004, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-108/02, Jégo-Quéré & Cie S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.


title: Case T-249/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2010 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ‘Fitcoin’ — Earlier national, international and Community figurative marks ‘coin’ — Relative ground for refusal — Relevant public — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2010 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin)
   (Case T-249/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ‘Fitcoin’ - Earlier national, international and Community figurative marks ‘coin’ - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 148/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Coin SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamiki Zoi AE (Athens, Greece)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Coin SpA and Dynamiki Zoi AE.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-528/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg (France) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Geoffrey Léger v Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Établissement français du sang

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg (France) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Geoffrey Léger v Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Établissement français du sang
   (Case C-528/13)
   2013/C 367/46
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Strasbourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Geoffrey Léger

      Defendants: Ministre des affaires sociales et de la santé, Établissement français du sang

      Question referred

   In the light of Annex III to Directive 2004/33/EC, (1) does the fact that a man has sexual relations with another man constitute in itself sexual behaviour placing him at a high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood and justifying a permanent deferral from blood donation for persons having engaged in that sexual behaviour, or is it merely capable of constituting, in the light of the circumstances of the individual case, sexual behaviour placing him at a risk of acquiring infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood and justifying a temporary deferral from blood donation for a period determined after the cessation of the risk behaviour?

      (1)  Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components (OJ 2004 L 91, p. 25).


title: Case T-37/99: Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 121/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
Action brought on 8 January 1999 by Keller SpA in                         In support of their claims, the applicants, which, following a
special administration and Keller Meccanica SpA in special                declaration of insolvency, are subject to special administration,
administration against the Commission of the European                     advance the following pleas:
                          Community
                                                                          — distortion of the facts and consequent misapplication of
                                                                              Article 92 in the evaluation of the loans on favourable
                         (Case T-35/99)                                       terms mentioned above, as regards in particular the
                                                                              inapplicability of Regional Law No 25/1993 to undertak-
                                                                              ings subject to special administration, the exclusive applica-
                        (1999/C 121/40)                                       bility of the aid regime provided for in Regional Law
                                                                              No 66/1976 to undertakings with fixed investments not
                                                                              exceeding ITL 7 000 million and a maximum of 100
                                                                              employees and the fact that the regime approved did not
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            provide for machinery for adjustment of the aid par-
                                                                              ameters, in respect of which the amendments made to the
                                                                              implementing Directives should have been notified to the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     Commission,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 8
February 1999 by Keller SpA in special administration and                 — incorrect application of the Community guidelines regard-
Keller Meccanica SpA in special administration, represented by                ing restructuring aid, in that the contested decision stated
Prof. Diego Corapi, Vittorio Cappuccilli and Massimo Merola,                  that the plan for reorganisation of the applicant companies
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 could not be regarded as a genuine restructuring plan and
the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 rue Albert Premier.                          that the intervention in question did not include measures
                                                                              designed to prevent improper distortions of competition,
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — incorrect calculation of interest for restructuring purposes.
— annul the contested decision,
— in the alternative, declare null and void the part of the
    contested decision concerning calculation of the interest
    payable on the sums to be recovered,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-37/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (1999/C 121/41)
The applicant companies, forming part of the Keller Group,
specialising in the production of rolling stock and the provision
of services relating to the transport sector and distribution,                               (Language of the case: Italian)
take exception to the defendant’s decision of 1 July 1998,
adopted on conclusion of a procedure initiated pursuant to                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, according to which:                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          12 February 1999 by Dr Ugo Miranda, represented by Luca G.
— the conditions under which loans on favourable terms                    Radicati di Brozolo, of the Milan Bar, with an address for
    were granted in the sum of ITL 33 839 million to Keller               service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alex Schmidt, 7 Val
    SpA and of ITL 6 500 million to Keller Meccanica SpA do               Ste Croix.
    not correspond to those laid down for regional aid by
    Regional Law No 25/1993 of the Sicilian Region and                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    Regional Law No 66/1976 of the Sardinia Region, both
    of which provide for an aid scheme approved by the
    Commission,                                                           — annul the contested decision,
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— the aid granted in the form of lower interest rates, equal to
    ITL 4 288 million, in favour of Keller SpA likewise does
    not comply with the Community guidelines on State                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in
    difficulties and could not benefit from any of the dero-
    gations provided for in Article 92(2) and (3) of the EC               The applicant, a retired official in receipt of a pension, is
    Treaty and mentioned in Article 51(2) and (3) of the                  challenging the Commission decision regarding recovery of
    EEA Agreement and are therefore incompatible with the                 the sums paid in December 1995 by way of resettlement
    common market.                                                        allowance.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.5.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 121/19
In its decision, the defendant contends that, in the event, there         T. Port GmbH & Co. KG was represented by Gert Meier,
was no resettlement within the meaning of Article 6 of                    Rechtsanwalt, 10 Jakodenstraße, Cologne (Federal Republic of
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations since Mr Miranda, after                Germany).
moving to Rome in November 1995, subsequently changed
his place of residence to Brussels in February 1996.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that he scrupulously observed the pro-
visions governing the resettlement allowance and that he acted
with the utmost good faith and openness. He considers that the            1. order the defendant to compensate the applicant for its
Commission erred in law in interpreting Article 6 of Annex VII                loss suffered as a result of the fact that:
to the Staff Regulations and also failed to meet its obligation to
give a full and correct statement of the reasons for its decision             a) the competent authority caused the quantity provision-
and that, in any event it infringed his legitimate expectations.                   ally approved for the applicant to be reduced by
                                                                                multiplying that quantity by the adjustment coefficient,
He claims that he actually moved his residence, as is confirmed
                                                                                and;
inter alia by the fact that he served a notice evicting his tenants
from his apartment in Rome and by the expenditure incurred
in moving in. According to the applicant, the period for which                b) reduced the quantity for which the applicant had
he stayed at the place to which be moved must be deemed                            applied by the amounts imported in 1994 into Finland,
irrelevant, inter alia for the purpose of assessing whether the                    Austria and Sweden, and;
removal actually took place. On this point, he draws attention
to the conflict between the rules on the resettlement allowance               c) reduced that quantity by the amount judicially deter-
at issue here and the rules on the installation allowance                          mined;
provided for in Article 5(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations.
                                                                          2. order the defendant to make good that reduction by
                                                                              allocation to it corresponding additional licences in the
                                                                              future (compensation in kind);
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by T. Port GmbH                        3. order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
& Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                          (Case T-52/99)
                         (1999/C 121/42)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                similar to those in Cases T-18/99 (Cordis obst und Gemüse
European Communities on 19 February 1999 by T. Port                       Großhandel GmbH v. Commission) and T-30/99 (Bocchi Food
GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg (Federal Republic of Germany).                     Trade International v. Commission).


title: Case T-458/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Automobile Club di Brescia v OHIM — Rebel Media (e-miglia)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/31

         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Automobile Club di Brescia v OHIM — Rebel Media (e-miglia)
   (Case T-458/15)
   (2015/C 328/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Automobile Club di Brescia (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rebel Media Ltd (Wilmslow, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘e-miglia’ — Application for registration No 9 782 673

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 June 2015 in Case R 1990/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul only paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

               —

               confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 30 May 2014 concerning opposition No B 1 900 540 in its entirety, except for the part relating to compensation of expenses;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of all proceedings before OHIM.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-321/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/19

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-321/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 141/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T-314/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 –Avebe v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine — Liability of the parent company for the unlawful conduct of an association without its own legal personality — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Rights of the defence — Exculpatory documents — Principle of proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 –Avebe v Commission
   (Case T-314/01) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Liability of the parent company for the unlawful conduct of an association without its own legal personality - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Rights of the defence - Exculpatory documents - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2006/C 294/83)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en Derivaten Avebe BA (Veendam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Dekker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Whelan and W. Wils, Agents, assisted by M. van der Woude, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of Article 1 of Decision C(2001) 2931 of 2 October 2001 concerning a procedure under Article 81 of the Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/E 1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate), in so far as it pertains to the applicant or, in the alternative, annulment of Article 3 of that decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en Derivaten Avebe BA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-592/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) of 20 November 2013 — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico v Ediltecnica SpA

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) of 20 November 2013 — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico v Ediltecnica SpA
   (Case C-592/13)
   2014/C 52/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Respondent: Ediltecnica SpA

      Question referred for a preliminary ruling

   Do the European Union principles relating to the environment, laid down in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 (Articles 1 and 8(3) and recitals 13 and 24 in the preamble) — specifically, the ‘polluter pays’principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority — preclude national legislation, such as the rules set out in Articles 244, 245 and 253 of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006, which, in circumstances in which it is established that a site is contaminated and in which it is impossible to identify the polluter or to have that person adopt the restoration measures, do not permit the administrative authority to require the owner (who is not responsible for the pollution) to implement the emergency safety and decontamination measures, merely attributing to that person financial liability limited to the value of the site once the decontamination measures have been carried out?

      (1)  Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56).


title: Case T-182/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/28

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DUO)
   (Case T-182/16)
   (2016/C 222/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER DUO’ — Application for registration No 11 577 574

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2916/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-50/09: Action brought on 4 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/19

         Action brought on 4 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-50/09)
   (2009/C 82/35)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, C. Clyne, J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to transpose Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended;

               —

               declare that by failing to ensure that, where Irish planning autorities and the Environmental Protection Agency both have decision-making powers on a project, there will be complete fulfilment of the requirements of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that Directive;

               —

               declare that by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation transposing that Directive,
               Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Failure to transpose article 3 of the directive
   The Commission submits that Section 173 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2000, which requires planning authorities to have regard to the environmental impact statement (EIS) and information coming from consultees, relates to the duty under art. 8 of the directive to take into consideration information gathered pursuant to arts. 5, 6 and 7 of the directive. In the Commission's view Section 173 does not correspond to the wider duty under art. 3 of the directive to ensure that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) identifies, describes and assesses all the matters referred to in that provision.
   As for Articles 94, 108 and 111 and Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, the Commission makes the following observations. Art. 94 read with Schedule 6.2(b) sets out the information that an EIS must contain. This is a reference to the information that the developer must provide pursuant to art. 5 of the directive; it is therefore to be distinguished from the EIA which is the overall assessment process. Arts. 108 and 111 require planning authorities to consider the adequacy of an EIS. The Commission considers that these provisions relate to Art. 5 of the directive but are not a substitute for a transposition of art. 3 of the directive. The information to be provided by a developer is only one part of an EIA and provisions concerning such information are not a substitute for the obligation set out in art. 3.
   Failure to require proper coordination between authorities
   Although the Commission has no objection in principle to multi-stage decision-making or to decision-making responsibility for the same project being divided between different decision-makers, it does have concerns relating to the precise manner in which duties on different decision-makers are framed. In the Commission's view Irish legislation contains no obligation on decision-makers to coordinate with each other effectively and is, therefore, contrary to articles 2, 3 and 4 of the directive.
   Failure to apply the directive to demolition works
   The Commission takes the view that, where the other conditions set out in the directive are fulfilled, an EIA must be carried out for demolition works. Ireland purported to exempt nearly all demolition works by the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (Schedule 2, part I, Class 50). In the Commission's submission, this is plainly at variance with the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 175, p. 40.


title: Case C-36/09 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2009 by Transportes Evaristo Molina SA against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2008 in Case T-45/08 Transportes Evaristo Molina SA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/16

         Appeal brought on 28 January 2009 by Transportes Evaristo Molina SA against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2008 in Case T-45/08 Transportes Evaristo Molina SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-36/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Transportes Evaristo Molina SA (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, S. Beltrán Ruiz and L. Ruiz Ezquerra, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 in Case T-45/08 in its entirety and, if the Court of Justice considers that it has sufficient evidence to give a ruling on the substance of the appeal brought against the Court of First Instance:

                           —

                           Prior to the assessment of the substance of the case, declare relevant and order the production of the evidence requested by Transportes Evaristo Molina SA in its application for annulment; and

                           —

                           Uphold the submissions put forward by Transportes Evaristo Molina SA before the Court of First Instance: annulment of the Commission decision of 12 April 2006 (1) relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) on the grounds that it infringes Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003 (2), and the principles of Community law laid down in the action for annulment, Article 81 EC and the exemption regulations for the categories which are set out in Article 81(3), Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 (3) and Regulation (EC) No 2790/99 (4).

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               (a)

               The ‘dies a quo’ (day from which) the starting point for the limitation period laid down in Article 230 EC is calculated is the day on which the contested measure (Commission decision of 12 April 2006 (5) relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) directly and individually affected TRANSPORTES EVARISTO MOLINA SA.

               (b)

               If the Court considers that the action for annulment brought by TRANSPORTES EVARISTO MOLINA SA is time-barred, the applicant submits that that should be regarded as excusable since the conduct of the Commission caused confusion on the applicant's part.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2006/446/of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104).

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

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ 1983 L 173, p. 5).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices.

      (5)  Commission Decision 2006/446/of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104).


title: Case C-64/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Kingdom of Sweden v IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, formerly Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Public access to documents of the institutions — Documents originating from a Member State — Objection of the Member State to disclosure of the documents — Scope of Article 4(5) of the Regulation)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Kingdom of Sweden v IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, formerly Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-64/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Public access to documents of the institutions - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection of the Member State to disclosure of the documents - Scope of Article 4(5) of the Regulation)
   (2008/C 51/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Wistrand, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by E. Bygglin and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, formerly Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH (represented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, and R. Lang, avocat), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh, Agent), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster, C.M. Wissels and M. de Grave, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by S. Nwaokolo and V. Jackson, Agents, and J. Stratford, Barrister), Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Docksey and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the respondent: Kingdom of Spain (represented by I. del Cuvillo Contreras and A. Sampol Pucurull, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission, dismissing an application for annulment of a decision of the Commission rejecting a request made by IFAW pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) for access to certain documents of the German authorities claiming the existence of imperative grounds of major public interest for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 26 March 2002 refusing IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH access to certain documents received by the Commission in the course of a procedure which ended with the Commission giving an opinion favourable to the carrying out of an industrial project on a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in connection with the appeal proceedings and the costs incurred by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH both in the appeal proceedings and in those at first instance in which the Court of First Instance of the European Communities gave judgment on 30 November 2004, IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs relating to the appeal;

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-5/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/109/EC — Third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-5/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/109/EC - Third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 283/05)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-425/09: Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/39

         Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)
   (Case T-425/09)
   2009/C 312/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 July 2009 in case R 1097/2008-1;

               —

               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 word mark ‘BLAST’, for goods in classes 7 and 12

      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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘BLAST’ for goods and services in classes 7, 35 and 37; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark ‘BLAST’ for goods and services in classes 7, 35 and 37

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-258/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Non-transposition within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/17

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-258/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Non-transposition within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 22/32)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by not having adopted, within the prescribed period, the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-264/00: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission (Annulment action — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Commission decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/21

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission
   (Case T-264/00) (1)

   (Annulment action - State aid - Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia - Commission decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid - Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
   2012/C 258/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnia Generale delle Acque SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Biagnini, P. Petinelli and A. Bortoluzzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented initially by U. Leanza, then I. Braguglia, then R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws No 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission relates to the substance of the case.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being partially manifestly inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

               3.

               Compagnia Generale delle Acque SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


No C 208/38           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               12 . 8 . 95
European Communities ordered the removal from the                     T-240/94 : Imre Czigany v. Commission of the European
register of Case T-228/94 : Anton Rusp v. Council of the              Communities .
European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .                                                         (M OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
(») OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-95/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/85 )
     Removal from the register of Case T-240/94 ( )                                 (Language of the case: French)
                          ( 95/C 208/ 84 )
                                                                      By order of 20 June 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
             (Language of the case: German)                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-95/95 : Didier Gambier v. Commission of the European
By order of 19 June 1995 the President of the Third                   Communities .
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case             (M OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case C-597/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 24 October 2014 in Case T-543/12 Grau Ferrer v OHIM — Rubio Ferrer (Bugui Va)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/5

         Appeal brought on 22 December 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 24 October 2014 in Case T-543/12 Grau Ferrer v OHIM — Rubio Ferrer (Bugui Va)
   (Case C-597/14 P)
   (2015/C 089/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Folliard-Montguiral, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer and Alberto Rubio Ferrer

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               deliver a new judgment on the substance of the case, dismissing the action brought against the contested decision, or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court infringed Article 76(2) of the CTR (1) and the third paragraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 (2) by considering that those provisions were applicable in the present case on the basis of incorrect assessment criteria.

               2.

               The General Court infringed Article 76(2) of the CTR and the third paragraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 by basing its findings on an incorrect interpretation of the discretion arising from those provisions. In particular, by considering that the Board of Appeal enjoys such a discretion irrespective of whether the evidence presented for the first time before it is additional or not. The question whether the Boards of Appeal’s discretion under Article 76(2) of the CTR and the third paragraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 exists in any event, that is to say, even when the evidence presented out of time before the Board of Appeal is new, is a point of law which must be clarified by the Court of Justice.

               3.

               The General Court erroneously applied Article 15(1), second paragraph, point (a) of the CTR by concluding that the earlier Community trade mark had been used in a form differing in elements which did not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-57/05: Action brought on 8 February 2005 by Jeremy Henry Moore Newsum, Mark Anthony Loveday and Robin Shedden Broadhurst against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/29

         Action brought on 8 February 2005 by Jeremy Henry Moore Newsum, Mark Anthony Loveday and Robin Shedden Broadhurst against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-57/05)
   (2005/C 106/62)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 February 2005 by Jeremy Henry Moore Newsum, Mark Anthony Loveday and Robin Shedden Broadhurst, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by M. Kingston QC, D. Park, Barrister and J. Withinshaw, Solicitor.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the following parts of the Commission's Decision of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (1) (notified under document number C(2004) 4032);

                           (i)

                           Article 1 and that item in Annex 1 of the contested decision provided with the SCI code UK0030163 Halkyn Mountain/Mynydd Helygain;

                           (ii)

                           or in the alternative, Article 1 and that item in Annex 1 of the contested decision provided with the SCI code UK0030163 Halkyn Mountain/Mynydd Helygain which is shown coloured red in the plan annexed to the application;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are the owners of tracts of land which is partly used for agriculture and mineral extraction purposes which now, under the contested decision, has been declared a site of Community importance (SCI) for the Atlantic biogeographical region.
   The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes their fundamental rights guaranteed by the general principles of the Community legal order. That infringement of fundamental rights is formally unlawful because upon adoption of the Commission Decision (and upon implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC (2)) no form of right of participation is bestowed upon the property owners concerned. The applicants also allege that the Commission encouraged or acquiesced in a public participation exercise undertaken by the Member State in question which was flawed and inadequate in its nature and duration.
   The applicants further submit that no consideration was given to economic and social requirements, which includes the applicant's private property rights. The contested decision is also contrary to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC itself because the question of the compensation to be paid remains entirely open and unresolved.
   According to the applicants, the contested decision does not specify the species and habitats for which the sites listed are of Community importance and is based on erroneous technical information. It would appear that the areas in question were listed on the basis of the presence of the great crested newt and of calaminarian grasslands. The applicants argue that the former is not an priority species and the latter is not a priority habitat and that, therefore, they do not know to which priority natural habitat type or species the contested decision refers.

      (1)  OJ L 387 p. 1

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).