title: Case T-467/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Colgate-Palmolive Company v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (360° SONIC ENERGY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark 360° SONIC ENERGY — Earlier international word mark SONIC POWER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2013 — Colgate-Palmolive Company v OHIM — dm-drogerie markt (360° SONIC ENERGY)
   (Case T-467/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark 360° SONIC ENERGY - Earlier international word mark SONIC POWER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 31/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 May 2011 (Case R 1094/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Colgate-Palmolive Company.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Colgate-Palmolive Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319 of 29.10.2011.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-322/02 (1)

   (2004/C 228/72)
   By order of 17 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-322/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Augsburg): Eva-Maria Weller v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case T-435/16: Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/21

         Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Ms v Commission
   (Case T-435/16)
   (2017/C 070/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ms (Castries, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   declare the present action admissible and well founded;
   as a result,

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision refusing to communicate personal data concerning the applicant, taken on 16 June 2016;

               —

               order payment of compensation for the non-material harm resulting from the European Commission’s misconduct, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1) and, in particular, of Articles 8, 13 and 20 thereof. The applicant also alleges infringement of the fundamental right of access to personal data and of the right to respect for private life, as well as infringement of the principles of the rights of the defence, equality of arms and the right to good administration. In addition, it argues that the contested decision is vitiated by an unlawful and unfounded statement of reasons. All those illegalities constitute as many instances of misconduct which have caused the applicant real and certain harm.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 April 1998 in Case T-16/96: Cityflyer Express Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Air transport - State aid - Interest-free loan - Amount of the aid - Principle of the market economy investor - Principle of proportionality - Manifest error of assessment - Statement of reasons - Need for exchange of argument between the Commission and the complainant)

text:
C 184/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.6.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          annulment of Commission Decision 95/466/EC of 26 July
                       of 30 April 1998                            1995 concerning aid granted by the Flemish Region to the
                                                                   Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransportmaatschappij NV
in Case T-214/95: Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region)              (OJ L 267 of 9.11.1995, p. 49) Ð the Court (Fifth
      v. Commission of the European Communities (1)                Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of R.
                                                                   García-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M.
(Application for annulment Ð Air transport Ð State aid
                                                                   Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Ð Small amount Ð Distortion of competition Ð Effect
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 on trade between Member States Ð Statement of reasons)
                                                                   30 April 1998 in which it:
                        (98/C 184/18)
                                                                   1. Dismisses the application;
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-214/95: Het Vlaamse Gewest (Flemish Region),             2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
represented by Alfred L. Merckx, of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
Duro and Lorang, 4 Boulevard Royal, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Pieter
Van Nuffel and Anders Christian Jessen) Ð application
for annulment of Commission Decision 95/466/EC of
26 July 1995 concerning aid granted by the Flemish
Region to the Belgian airline Vlaamse Luchttransport-
maatschappij NV (OJ L 267 of 9.11.1995, p. 49) Ð the               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended                                        FIRST INSTANCE
Composition), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.                                   of 2 April 1998
Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,         in Case T-86/96 R: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher
has given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it:                Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Others v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
1. Dismisses the application;                                      (State aid Ð Commission decision classifying a national
                                                                   aid measure as incompatible with the common market Ð
2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs.                         Interim measures Ð Order requiring authorisation for the
                                                                   aid to be granted on a provisional basis Ð Urgency Ð
                                                                                Balance of interests)
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                                (98/C 184/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          In Cases T-86/96 R: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luft-
                       of 30 April 1998                            fahrt-Unternehmen, established in Bonn, composed of the
                                                                   following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH & Co.
in Case T-16/96: Cityflyer Express Ltd v. Commission of            Luftverkehrs-KG, established at Oberursel (Germany), Air
                the European Communities (1)                       Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in
(Action for annulment Ð Air transport Ð State aid Ð                Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established at
Interest-free loan Ð Amount of the aid Ð Principle of the          Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,
market economy investor Ð Principle of proportionality             established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
Ð Manifest error of assessment Ð Statement of reasons              established at Langenhagen (Germany), LTU Lufttransport
Ð Need for exchange of argument between the                        Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established in
              Commission and the complainant)                      Düsseldorf, and Hapag Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,
                                                                   established at Langenhagen, represented by Gerrit Schohe,
                        (98/C 184/19)                              Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
               (Language of the case: English)                     Philippe II, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: Paul F. Nemitz and Georg Berrisch) Ð
                                                                   application for interim measures in relation to
In Case T-16/96: Cityflyer Express Ltd, established at             Commission Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996
Gatwick Airport (United Kingdom), represented by                   concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form
Charles Price, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            of a depreciation facility (OJ L 146 of 20.6.1996, p. 42)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong               Ð the President of the Court of First Instance has made
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                 an order on 2 April 1998, the operative part of which is
Peter Oliver and Anders Jessen) Ð application for                  as follows:


C 55/20                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/01 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case C-260/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/46)                                                          (2003/C 55/49)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of              By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/01 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-260/01: European Parliament v
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Finanziaria Immobiliare            Council of the European Union.
Perugino SpA v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-310/01 ( 1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-90/01 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/50)
                         (2003/C 55/47)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-310/01 (Reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-90/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling by the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, AMGA —
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): San Marco SpA and Others
                                                                        Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. v Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l, A.G.E.S.I. —
v Ministero delle Finanze.
                                                                        Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case C-231/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-346/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/48)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/51)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-231/01 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): El. Da Srl v Ministero delle       from the register of Case C-346/01: Commission of the
Finanze.                                                                European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-204/16: Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Sun Media v EUIPO – Meta4 Spain (METABOX)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/30

         Action brought on 3 May 2016 – Sun Media v EUIPO – Meta4 Spain (METABOX)
   (Case T-204/16)
   (2016/C 232/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Central Hong Kong, Hong-Kong Special Administrative Region of China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘METABOX’ – Application for registration No 11 819 125

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 307/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 et sqq of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the EUIPO’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law.


title: Case F-130/11: Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/22

         Action brought on 2 December 2011 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-130/11)
   2012/C 65/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decisions transferring pension rights acquired before entry into Commission service on the basis of the re-calculated PMO proposal.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions annulling and replacing the proposals for transfer of the applicants’ pension rights pursuant to their application under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, which contain a new proposal calculated on the basis of the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-208/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów and Others v Commission

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/37

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów and Others v Commission
   (Case T-208/07)
   (2007/C 183/72)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów S.A. (Rogowiec, Poland), BOT Elektrownia Turów S.A. (Bogatynia, Poland), BOT Elektrownia Opole S.A. (Brzezie, Poland), Elektrownia ‘Kozienice’ S.A. (Świerże Górne, Poland), Elektrownia Połaniec S.A. — Grupa Electrabel Polska (Połaniec, Poland), Elektrownia ‘Rybnik’ S.A. (Rybnik, Poland), Elektrownia Skawina S.A. (Skawina, Poland), Elektrownia ‘Stalowa Wola’ S.A. (Stalowa Wola, Poland), Południowy Koncern Energetyczny S.A. (Katowice, Poland), Zespół Elektrowni Dolna Odra S.A. (Nowe Czarnowo, Poland), Zespół Elektrowni Ostrołęka S.A. (Ostrołęka, Poland) and Zespół Elektrowni Pątnów-Adamów-Konin S.A. (Konin, Poland) (represented by: B. Krużewski, M. Ciemiński, J. Młot-Schönthaler, N. Dodoo and S. Boullart, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period 2008-2012 notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC (1).
   In support of their application the applicants allege that the Commission erred by adopting a decision substantially reducing, inter alia, the total quantity of CO2 emission allowances that installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC can emit.
   The applicants submit in this regard that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements laid down in Directive 2003/87/EC in that it i) unlawfully adopted the contested decision after the expiry of the three-month period laid down in Article 9(3) of the directive, and ii) unlawfully restricted the applicants' right to be consulted prior to Poland's adoption of a definitive national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances for the period 2008-2012.
   The applicants furthermore claim that the Commission misused the powers conferred upon it under Directive 2003/87/EC in that it i) adopted too low a GDP growth rate for Poland and too stringent an emission reduction ratio, which resulted in the allocation of an underestimated total emission quota for Poland; and ii) distorted the real purpose of the directive as a cost-effective instrument for the fulfilment of the greenhouse gas emission commitments of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol by reducing the national emission level for 2008-2012 far below what was needed for Poland to fulfil its Kyoto objective.
   Finally, the applicants contend that the Commission disregarded the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality, equal treatment and the duty for institutional cooperation as well as its obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case T-444/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission (Interim measures — Application for stay of execution — Submission of the application — Inadmissibility — Association — Financial loss — Lack of urgency)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/29

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008 — CPEM v Commission
   (Case T-444/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for stay of execution - Submission of the application - Inadmissibility - Association - Financial loss - Lack of urgency)
   (2008/C 92/59)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Centre de promotion de l'emploi par la micro-entreprise (CPEM) (Marseilles, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for stay of execution of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 December 2007 cancelling the assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-420/09: Action brought on 19 October 2009 — BSA v OHIM — Loblaws (PRÉSIDENT)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/37

         Action brought on 19 October 2009 — BSA v OHIM — Loblaws (PRÉSIDENT)
   (Case T-420/09)
   2009/C 312/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BSA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Loblaws, Inc.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 August 2009 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, (Case R 1744/2008-4),

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: BSA

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘PRÉSIDENT’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 42 — application for registration No 2 135 200

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Loblaws, Inc.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the French word mark ‘President’s Choice’ for goods in Classes 5, 30, 31 and 32 and the Community figurative mark ‘PRESIDENT’S CHOICE’ for goods in Classes 30, 31 and 32 (Community trade mark No 1 872 407)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: partial upholding of the opposition

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

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009] and of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, (1) and of the principle of the right to be heard in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

      (1)  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 C-407/09: Action brought on 22 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/16

         Action brought on 22 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-407/09)
   2010/C 11/27
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kontou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by having failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 18 July 2007 in Case C-26/07, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a proposed penalty payment in the sum of EUR 72 532,80 for each day of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment delivered in Case C-26/07, from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-26/07 has been complied with;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, the daily lump sum of EUR 10 512 for each day of delay from the day on which judgment was delivered in Case C-26/07 until the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case, or the date on which the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-26/07 are taken if that occurs earlier;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the legislative measures necessary for transposing Directive 2004/80/EC into Greek law.
   It is therefore clear that the Hellenic Republic has not yet taken the measures required in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 July 2007 in Case C-26/07 Commission v Greece.
   Under the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission is to specify in its application the amount of the lump sum and/or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned which it considers appropriate in the circumstances. In the instance in point, the Commission has decided to propose to the Court a penalty payment and a lump sum.
   The Commission, acting on the basis of the principles and the methods of calculation set out in the Communication of 13 December 2005, has regard to three fundamental criteria when determining the proposed amount: (a) the seriousness of the infringement; (b) the duration of the infringement; and (c) the need to ensure that the penalty will be a deterrent.
   Analysis of the application of those criteria in the present case leads to the conclusion that the duration of the infringement and its effects on private and public interests are significant and justify imposition of the financial penalties proposed.
   As is apparent from the Commission’s report relating to implementation of the directive, all the Member States apart from Greece have transposed the directive into national law and provide the protection required by the directive.
   The failure to transpose the directive into Greek law obstructs achievement of the fundamental objective of freedom of movement for persons in a uniform area of freedom, security and justice. The effects on interests of a general and individual nature are therefore very significant.


title: Case F-106/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Goddijn v Europol

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 — Goddijn v Europol
   (Case F-106/12)
   2013/C 46/73
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-516/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ferriere Nord SpA (Appeal — Competition — Commission decision — Fine — Enforcement — Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 — Limitation period — Acts adversely affecting a party — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ferriere Nord SpA
   (Case C-516/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Commission decision - Fine - Enforcement - Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Limitation period - Acts adversely affecting a party - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 22/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission by which the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission decisions notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by facsimile of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord v Commission;

               2.

               Declares the action for annulment brought by Ferriere Nord SpA against the decisions of the Commission of the European Communities notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by fax of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord SpA by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) inadmissible.

               3.

               Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-92/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (GAS)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/21

         Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (GAS)
   (Case T-92/12)
   2012/C 126/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: André Pierre Gas (Marseille, France) (represented by: L. Levy, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grotto Spa (Chiuppano, Italy)

      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 17 November 2011 in Case R 600/2009-1 in its entirety and refer the case back to OHIM to be reconsidered in the light of the decision to be made;

               —

               Order the proprietor of the disputed Community trade mark to pay all the future costs of these proceedings and to reimburse the applicant for the costs of appeal incurred by him to date.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘GAS’ for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25 — registered Community trade mark No 882548.

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds put forward for the application for the declaration of invalidity are based, on the one hand, on the application of Article 53(1)(a) and (c), Article 8(1)(b), Article 53(2) and Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and, on the other, on French registrations No 1594704 and No 1627459 of figurative [marks] ‘-GAS- BIJOUX’ and ‘BIJOUX –GAS-’ for goods in Classes 14 and 25.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Annulment of the Community trade mark.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and dismissal of the application for annulment.

      Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 56(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(3) [of Regulation No 207/2009]) and of Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation No 2868/95; infringement of Article 15(1) and (2) of Regulation No 40/94 and of Article L714(5)(b) of the French Intellectual Property Code; infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 [of Regulation No 207/2009]), in that the Board of Appeal committed a number of errors in law and of assessment as regards the evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark under Class 25.

               Incorrect application of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 and infringement of Article 53 of Regulation No 40/94 and [the following] provisions of French law: Article 2262 of the Civil Code and Article L714(3) of the French Intellectual Property Code, in that the assessment by the Board of Appeal of the likelihood of confusion is incorrect.

               Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the Board of Appeal was not entitled to limit its examination to only the prior right existing under mark No 1594704, after having decided to exercise the powers of the Cancellation Division, nor to refer the case back to the Cancellation Division to rule on the other rights relied on, which had already been examined.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security Commissioner, by decision of 25 February 1997, in the case of Robin Swaddling against the Adjudication Officer (Case C-90/97)

text:
No C 131 /8           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
Reference      for   a       preliminary   ruling     from   the       move to another Member State, where the person has
Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 18 July                  worked and become habitually resident, and finally
1996 in the case of Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio              returns to the first Member State in order to seek work, is
Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH                 it compatible with the requirements of Article 48 of the
   & Co KG and (2 ) Eduard Bracharz Gesellschaft mbH                   Treaty of Rome for the first Member State to impose a
                        ( Case C-87/97)                                condition of habitual residence in that State ( involving the
                                                                       existence of an appreciable period of residence in that
                          ( 97/C 131/18 )                              State ) on entitlement to a general non-contributory means
                                                                       tested state benefit with the characteristics of British
                                                                       income support ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 18 July 1996, which
was received at the Court Registry on 27 February 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Consorzio per la
Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v. ( 1 ) Kaserei Champi               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
gnon Hofmeister GmbH & Co KG and ( 2 ) Eduard Bra                     Bundessozialgericht, by order of that court of 12 December
charz Gesellschaft mbH on the following questions:                     1996 in the case of Arif Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur
                                                                                Arbeit
— Is it compatible, in the current state of Community                                          ( Case C-91 /97 )
     law, with the principles of the free movement of goods
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /20 )
     (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) that a cheese
     which has been lawfully produced in a Member State
     since 1977 and designated by the name 'Cambozola',                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and which has been marketed in another Member                     European        Communities           by    order  of        the
     State since 1983, is not permitted to be marketed in              Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) of 12 December
     the latter Member State under the name 'Cambozola',               1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     on the basis of a national measure referring to an                3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arif
     international agreement for the protection of                     Altiney v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( Federal Employment
     geographical designations of origin and names of                  Office ) on the following question:
     certain products ( which protects the designation
     ' Gorgonzola') and referring to a national prohibition            Is a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the
     of misleading statements ?                                        labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of
                                                                       Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
— Does it make any difference to the answer to that                    Association Council on the development of the
     question if the packaging of the cheese designated as             Association, and is he legally employed in that State, if he
     'Cambozola' bears a clearly visible indication of the             has been permitted to work only for a limited period not
     country of manufacture ('Deutscher Weichkase'), if                exceeding three years as a speciality chef in a speciality
                                                                       restaurant ?
     that cheese is as a rule not displayed and sold to
     consumers in the form of whole cheeses, but in pieces,
     sometimes without the original packaging ?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Arbitrage
                                                                       of the Kingdom of Belgium by judgment of that court of
                                                                        19 February 1997 in the case brought by Federation Beige
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security              des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins concerning
Commissioner, by decision of 25 February 1997, in the                   annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
  case of Robin Swaddling against the Adjudication Officer                               Community of 5 April 1995
                         ( Case C-90/97 )                                                       ( Case C-93/97 )
                           ( 97/C 131/19 )                                                        ( 97/C 131 /21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour
European Communities by decision of the Social Security
 Commissioner of 25 February 1997, which was received
                                                                        d'Arbitrage ( Court of Arbitration ) of the Kingdom of
                                                                        Belgium of 19 February 1997, received at the Court
 at the Court Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Robin Swaddling against the                      Registry on 3 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling on the
Adjudication Officer, on the following question:
                                                                        following questions in the case brought by Federation
                                                                        Beige des Chambres Syndicales de Medecins ( Belgian
                                                                        Federation of Doctors' Associations ) concerning
 In circumstances where a person has worked and been                    annulment of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Decree of the Flemish
 habitually resident in one Member State, has then                      Community of 5 April 1995 , amending the Decree of
 exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers to              12 June 1991 relating to universities in the Flemish


title: Case C-38/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/7

         Action brought on 24 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-38/06)
   (2006/C 74/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Günter Wilms and Margarida Afonso, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by refusing to establish and to make available to the Commission the own resources due as a result of imports of equipment and goods for specifically military use in the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002 inclusive, and by refusing to pay the related default interest, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, (1) in so far as the period 1 January 1998 to 30 May 2000 inclusive is concerned and, after the latter date, under the corresponding provisions of Regulation No 1150/2000; (2)

               2.

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission believes that Article 296 EC does not allow a Member State to exempt from customs duties imports of military matériel, in that the levying of those duties cannot be considered to threaten that Member State's essential security interests.
   In the absence of concrete argument that might furnish specific justification of the need to derogate from the customs rules in order to protect the essential interests of the security of the Portuguese Republic, the Commission takes the view that the Portuguese authorities have failed to fulfil their obligations under Article 26 EC, Article 20 of the Community Customs Code (3) and, in consequence, the Common Customs Tariff.
   It is unacceptable that a Member State should avoid its obligations with regard to the joint and several co-financing of the Community's budget by pleading the need to fund its military expenditure at lower cost.
   Where the rules laid down are not complied with, all the Member States must bear the respective financial consequences, for such a case gives rise to the application of the mechanism which, by means of ‘GNP’ resources, offsets the shortfall in traditional own resources and VAT. Observance of the principle of good financial management, and also of the fundamental concepts of fairness and responsibility, demands that the Member States that caused the own resources made available to fall short of the amount due should alone bear the consequences for the Community budget resulting therefrom and, therefore, pay the sums not collected by reason of their respective failures to fulfil obligations.
   The failure at issue continued until 31 December 2002, seeing that Regulation No 150/2003 (4) has been applicable since 1 January 2003. It is only from that date that that regulation has made it possible to suspend, on certain conditions, customs duties on the import of certain weapons and military equipment.
   The Portuguese authorities ought to have credited the customs duties in the accounting ledgers in accordance with the rules fixed by the Community Customs Code for the imports at issue, and also to have established and made available to the Commission the own resources so resulting pursuant to Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 and the corresponding provisions of Regulation No 1150/2000. An infringement of the customs legislation having been committed, the Community must be credited with a sum equivalent to the own resources lacking. To that sum must be added the default interest provided for by Article 11 of Regulation No 1150/2000.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130. p. 1).

      (3)  Approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003 suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment (OJ 2003 L 25, p. 1).


title: Case C-315/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Openbaar Ministerie v Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Openbaar Ministerie v Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others
   (Case C-315/13)
   2013/C 252/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Defendants: Edgard Jan De Clercq, Emiel Amede Rosa De Clercq, Nancy Genevieve Wilhelmina Rottiers, Ermelinda Jozef Martha Tampère, Thermotec NV

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU (previously Articles 49 and 50 EC Treaty) and Article 3(1) and 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), whether or not read in conjunction with Article 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36), be interpreted as precluding Article 141 of the Programmawet (I) (Programme Law (I)) of 27 December 2006 under which a person for whom work is performed, either directly or through subcontracting, by posted employees or posted trainees, is placed under an obligation to make a declaration to the Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (National Office for Social Security) by electronic means (or failing that, by fax or by letter), prior to the commencement of the employment of those persons, of the identification data of those persons who do not have the possibility of submitting the acknowledgement of receipt delivered to their employer of his prior declaration, in conjunction with Article 157 of the Programmawet (I) of 27 December 2006 and Article 183(1)(1) of the Sociaal Strafwetboek (Social Criminal Code), which penalises non-compliance with that obligation by criminal sanctions?


title: Action brought on 28 August 1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter against the European Parliament (Case T-164/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 333/ 15
      — The decision discontinuing aid was taken on the                     Action brought on 28 August 1995 by Hedwig
          basis of the erroneous proposal of the Italian                  Kuchlenz-Winter against the European Parliament
          authority in infringement of the notice granting aid                                ( Case T- 164/95 )
          and contrary to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2908/83 . The
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/29 )
          only condition expressly provided for in the notice
          granting aid for its discontinuation was that the
          project should not have been begun within two                              (Language of the case: German)
          years . The Commission should have ascertained
          whether the issue of the certificate of fitness            An action against the European Parliament was brought
          constituted one of the 'conditions imposed' for the        before the Court of First Instance of the European
          project, within the meaning of Article 18 of the           Communities on 28 August 1995 by Hedwig Kuchlenz
          Regulation, instead of 'referring' to the opinion of       Winter, residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by
          the Ministry for the Merchant Navy on the ( alleged )      Dieter Rogalla , Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel ( Federal
          need to obtain that certificate .                          Republic of Germany ), with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
                                                                     Roger Barthel, Bereldange .
      — Likewise, the notice granting aid and Regulation
          ( EEC ) No 2908/83 ( and Commission Regulation             The applicant claims that the Court should :
          ( EEC ) No 378/84 ) have been infringed and
          disregarded having regard to the fact that not only        — declare that the European Parliament has unlawfully
          was the certificate of fitness not a 'condition                failed to act in relation to the applicant, inasmuch as,
          imposed' by the notice granting aid, it was not even           following the pension rights adjustment effected in the
          a document which served a purpose or was linked                applicant's favour pursuant to paragraph 1587 etseq. of
          to establishing whether the plant had been                     the Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the
          constructed .                                                  applicant should not have been excluded from the
                                                                         sickness insurance scheme; the defendant omitted to
                                                                         prevent that from happening, in that it unlawfully failed,
      — The notice granting aid and the regulation which                 within the framework of its powers in relation to the
          governs it have been infringed inasmuch as                     scheme, to propose to the competent EC institutions the
          information as to whether the applicant fulfilled the          corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of
          conditions for the grant of aid for guidance                   Officials,
          programmes has not been taken into account,
          considered or asked for. The carrying out of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
          project, albeit with aid from Community, has
          enabled the creation of jobs; wealth has been              Pleas in law and main arguments :
          generated, production has been started and
          developed, all in conformity with the objectives of        The applicant, a former official of the Court of Justice and of
          the Community.                                             the Commission of the European Communities, is the
                                                                     divorced former spouse of an official of the Parliament. She
                                                                     contests the fact that, under Article 72 ( lb ) of the Staff
                                                                     Regulations , she ceased, with effect from 1 April 1995 , to
( b ) Breach of the principle of proportionality                     qualify for cover under the sickness insurance scheme of the
                                                                     Communities, since that provision of the Staff Regulations
      The principle of proportionality is breached by the            entitles the divorced spouse of an official who provides
      penalty of discontinuing the aid on a ground which is          evidence that he or she cannot be covered by any other
      formalistic rather than formal and which, it may be            public scheme of sickness insurance to remain covered by
      said, placing a personal construction upon it, goes            the Community scheme for a period of only one year from
                                                                     the date of the decree absolute of divorce .
      beyond and is contrary to the legislation — it being
      legally impossible to obtain the formal document —             Following her marriage, the applicant ceased to work as a
      when in fact the practical and positive outcome is that        Community official, having completed seven and a half
      the plant has been built and work and wealth have been         years' service. Throughout her marriage she was entitled, as
      created .
                                                                     the spouse of an official, to benefits under the Community
                                                                     sickness insurance scheme. After her divorce, the applicant
                                                                     was unable to obtain sickness insurance cover in Germany,
( c ) Misuse of powers                                               her country of origin, in either a compulsory or a private
                                                                     sickness insurance scheme, and has therefore been
                                                                     compelled to continue to live in the Grand Duchy of
      The decision to discontinue the aid is ultra vires
                                                                     Luxembourg, in order not to lose her entitlement to sickness
      inasmuch as it departs from the objective referred to          insurance cover. That situation is particularly difficult for
      in the notice granting aid and thus departs from               her, because she suffers from a serious illness.
      Community law and the purpose and aims thereof.
                                                                     The applicant complains that the European Parliament has
                                                                     failed, within the context of its powers, to take any initiative
                                                                     to fill the gap in the rules revealed in the relevant provision of
                                                                     the Staff Regulations.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 12 . 95
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those                   First Instance on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE, a company
advanced by the applicant in Case T-66/95 Kuchlenz                  governed by Greek law, having its registered office in Agios
Winter v. Commission .                                               Konstantinos, Fthiotida ( Greece ), represented by
                                                                     Konstantinos Adamadopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig
Kuchlenz-Winter against the Council of the European                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               Union
                       ( Case T-167/95 )
                          ( 95/C 333/30 )
                                                                     1 . order the Commission to pay it compensation of
                                                                           Dr 288 304 629 plus default interest at the rate of 29 %
                                                                           from 5 December 1994 for actual losses and lost profits
               (Language of the case: German)                              suffered in the olive oil marketing year 1994/95 caused
                                                                           by the unlawful conduct of the Commission;
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig                            2 . order the Commission to pay it compensation of
Kuchlenz-Winter, residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ),                        Dr 82 500 000 for the damage suffered by the applicant
represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel                   by reason of the harm to its commercial reputation
( Federal Republic of Germany ), with an address for service               caused by the unlawful conduct of the Commision;
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
Roger Barthel, Bereldange .
                                                                     3 . order the Commission to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Council has unlawfully failed to act in
    relation to the applicant, inasmuch as, following the            Pleas in law and main arguments:
    pension rights adjustment effected in the applicant's
    favour pursuant to paragraph 1587 et seq. of the
    Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the              The applicant is a company which mass-produces and
    applicant should not have been excluded from the                 markets agricultural products . It took part in the tendering
    sickness insurance scheme; the defendant omitted to              procedure announced by the Commission of the European
    prevent that from happening, in that it unlawfully failed,       Communities for the despatch of 3 000 tonnes of olive oil to
    within the framework of its powers in relation to the            the people of Georgia and Armenia on the basis of
    scheme , to propose to the competent EC institutions the         Commission Regulations ( EEC ) Nos 2494/94 and 2693/94
    corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of             and succeeded in being awarded the supply of 1 500 tonnes
    Officials,                                                       of olive oil . The applicant maintains that because of the
                                                                     two-month delay in taking over the goods on the part of the
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             transporter, the choice of which was the sole responsibility
                                                                     of the Commission under Regulation ( EC ) No 2693/94, it
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     suffered significant losses and lost profits . In particular the
                                                                     applicant claims, on the basis of Articles 178 and the second
The pleas and main arguments advanced by the applicant               paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty: ( a ) compensation for
are   the   same   as    those    invoked  in   Case   T-66/95       the actual losses suffered, that is to say the warehousing and
Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission and in Case T-l 64/95                  supervision charges paid during the period of the delay; ( b )
Kuchlenz-Winter v. Parliament.                                       lost profits, in view of the fact that the security lodged in the
                                                                     context of the tendering procedure with the Commission
                                                                     could not be released, with the result that the applicant
                                                                     could not obtain financing to carry out commercial
                                                                     transactions on the market and resell quantities of olive oil
                                                                     at a period that is extremely crucial for the olive oil market;
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE against the            ( c ) default interest on the amount of the actual losses and
        Commission of the European Communities                       lost profits at the interest rate prevailing in Greece ( 29 % );
                       ( Case T-180/95                               and ( d ) lost profits on the ground of the harm to its
                                                                     commercial reputation and consequent loss of customers in
                          ( 95/C 333/31 )                            the commercial year 1995/96 .
                (Language of the case: Greek)
An action for damages against the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/45

         Removal from the Register of Case T-89/04 (1)

   (2004/C 228/109)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 24 May 2004, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-89/04, C.I. Bieger v Europol.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-572/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 November 2015 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 2 November 2015 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ
   (Case C-572/15)
   (2016/C 027/16)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG

      Defendant: Accord Healthcare OÜ

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) be interpreted as shortening the duration of a supplementary protection certificate issued in a Member State which was issued under national law before the accession of the State in question to the European Union and whose duration in relation to an active substance, as stated in the supplementary protection certificate, would be longer than 15 years from the time when the first marketing authorisation in the Union was granted for a medicinal product consisting of the active substance or containing it?

               2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) compatible with EU law, in particular the general principles of EU law on the protection of acquired rights, the principle of the prohibition of retroactive effect of law, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-72/96)

text:
No C 210/20         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Mediocurso,                        — breach of essential procedural requirements of
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the             Article 6 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No"2950/83 inasmuch
        Commission of the European Communities                          as the Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                       ( Case T-70/96 )                                 comment ,
                         ( 96/C 210/48 )
                                                                    — assuming, as a working hypothesis, that the statement of
                                                                        reasons of the contested act consists of the letters from
            (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)                          Dafse which contain the financial report, audits, breach
                                                                        of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of
An action against the Commission of the European                        respect for acquired rights, of the principle of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       protection of legitimate expectations , of the principle
Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1996                     of proportionality, of the rules applicable to the
by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular,                    management of the European Social Fund and of the
Limitada, whose registered office is in Lisbon , represented            earlier act approving the contribution in question .
by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue ,
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    Action brought on 15 May 1996 by Mediocurso,
                                                                    Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Limitada, against the
— annul the act of the Commission of the European
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities
    Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit Note ',
    reference No 95005690 E, ordering the applicant to                                       ( Case T-72/96 )
    repay Esc 1 482 209 in the context of a training                                           ( 96/C 210/49 )
    operation financed by the European Social Fund, file
    No 890583 PI ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
    proceedings .                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments                                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 May 1 996
                                                                    by Mediocurso , Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular,
The applicant, a commercial company which in 1988                   Limitada , whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented
                                                                    by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
submitted to the European Social Fund ( ESF ), through
Dafse, various requests for contributions to training               Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue ,
operations which it intended to carry out during 1989 , is
seeking the annulment of the act of the Commission of the           Luxembourg.
European Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit
Note', reference No 95005690 E, ordering the applicant to           The applicant claims that the Court should :
repay Esc 1 482 209 in the context of a training operation
financed by the European Social Fund, file No 890583 PI on
                                                                    — annul the act of the Commission of the European
the following grounds :                                                 Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit Note ',
                                                                        reference No 95005645 F, ordering the applicant to
— lack of competence, inasmuch as the author of the act                 repay Esc 1 271 245 in the context of a training
    has no power to make a decision in the name of the                  operation financed by the European Social Fund , File
    Commission as regards payment claims for the balance                No 890588 PI ,
    submitted by bodies entitled to ESF contributions,
                                                                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
— infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty inasmuch                 proceedings .
    as it completely lacks a statement of reasons,
— breach of the principle of giving the interested parties an       Pleas in law and main arguments
    opportunity to be heard beforehand , inasmuch as it was
    adopted without having given the applicant the                  The applicant, a commercial company which in 1988
    opportunity to comment on its content,                          submitted to the European Social Fund ( ESF ), through
                                                                    Dafse , various requests for contributions to training
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate           operations which it intended to carry out during 1989 , is
    expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for               seeking the annulment of the act of the Commission of the
    payment of the balance relating to the file in question         European Communities, bearing no date and headed 'Debit
    was submitted in time , the Commission did not adopt            Note ', reference No 95005645 F, ordering the applicant to
    within a reasonable period a decision thereon ,                 repay Esc 1 271 245 in the context of a training operation
 ---pagebreak---  20 . 7. 96              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 210/21
 financed by the European Social Fund, File No 890588 PI               — pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, order
 on the following grounds :                                                 the Commission to make good the damage caused by
                                                                            it .
— lack of competence, inasmuch as the author of the act
     has no power to make a decision in the name of the
      Commission as regards payment claims for the balance
     submitted by bodies entitled to ESF contributions,                Pleas in law and main arguments
— infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty inasmuch
     as it completely lacks a statement of reasons,                    The applicant, a Turkish limited liability company engaged
                                                                       in the manufacture and domestic and export sales, inter alia,
— breach of the principle of giving the interested parties an          of various types of cotton fabric, contests the Commission
     opportunity to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as it was            decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings concerning
     adopted without having given the applicant the                    imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the
     opportunity to comment on its content,                            People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia,
                                                                       Pakistan and Turkey, in so far as it affects the applicant.
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     expectations, inasmuch as, although the claim for
     payment of the balance relating to the file in question          The Commission has acted unlawfully vis-à-vis the
     was submitted in time, the Commission did not adopt               applicant by infringing the rules relating to the application
     within a reasonable period a decision thereon;                    of the EC Treaty and by misusing its powers, in that it has
                                                                       failed to apply the terms of the Agreement establishing an
— breach of essential procedural requirements of                      Association between the EC and Turkey, and in particular,
     Article 6 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2950/83 inasmuch        the procedure laid down in Article 47 of the additional
     as the Portuguese State was not given an opportunity to
                                                                      Protocol, in respect of anti-dumping cases involving the
                                                                       Community and Turkey, in the context of the final phase of
     comment ,
                                                                      customs union between both of them. The applicant stresses
— assuming, as a working hypothesis, that the statement of            in this regard that Article 47 refers to the Association
     reasons of the contested act consists of the letters from         Council, and not to the Commission, as the authority which
     Dafse which contain the financial report, audits, breach         must decide whether dumping is being practised .
     of the obligation to state reasons, of the principle of
     respect for acquired rights, of the principle of the
                                                                      According to the applicant, the approach adopted by the
     protection of legitimate expectations, of the principle
                                                                      Commission places Turkey in the same category as third
     of proportionality, of the rules applicable to the               countries with which the EC does not have the same kind of
     management of the European Social Fund and of the
                                                                      close legal and institutional ties, and thereby renders the
     earlier act approving the contribution in question .
                                                                      customs union established between the EC and Turkey
                                                                      meaningless so far as anti-dumping disputes are concerned,
                                                                      contrary to the Association Agreement.
                                                                      Finally, the applicant criticizes the recent insertion of the
Action brought on 20 May 1996 by Sôktas Pamuk Ve Tarim                sampling provision in Article 17 of the anti-dumping
Uriinlerini Degerlendirme Ticaret Ve Sanayii AS against the           Regulation, in so far as :
         Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-75/96 )
                            ( 96/C 210/50 )
                                                                      — it deprives a cooperating party in an anti-dumping
                                                                           proceeding of a fair review of its individual position,
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      — it makes it easier for the Commission to establish that the
An action against the Commission of the European                           ' Community industry' has cooperated, and
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 20 May 1996 by
Soktas Pamuk Ve Tarim Uriinlerini Degerlendirme Ticaret               — it enables the Commission to impose on parties not
Ve Sanayii AS, represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister,                   included in the sample duties not exceeding the weighted
instructed by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Brussels, with an                   average margin of dumping or assessed on the facts
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Arendt &                available .   On       the   other  hand,  the   effect   of
Medernach, 8-10 rue Matthias Hardt, Bt. 39 .                               Article 11 ( 4 ) (c ) of the anti-dumping Regulation is that
                                                                           where sampling has been used so-called ' newcomer
                                                                           reviews' under Article 11 ( 4 ) will not be possible .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the contested decision void and, in accordance
     with Article 87 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, award
     costs to the applicant,


title: Case C-482/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/49

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-482/06)
   (2006/C 326/100)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt (all) the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the European Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90.


title: Case C-505/03: Action brought on 28 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 21/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
The French Republic had confirmed its willingness to comply              Pleas in law and main arguments
with the decision of 13 November 2002. Nevertheless it failed
to submit evidence of the reimbursement by Bull, no later than
17 June 2003, of the cash advance of EUR 450 million,                    According to Article 7(6) and Article 19 of Directive 80/778/
including interest. The French Republic did not at any time              EEC, read in conjunction with Annex I to that directive, from
plead that it found it absolutely impossible to comply with the          15 July 1985 all water intended for human consumption in
decision. It took no action in relation to Bull with a view to           France must have a maximum nitrate concentration of less
obtaining reimbursement of the aid. Moreover, compliance                 than or equal to 50 mg/l.
with the decision did not present any particular difficulty,
since reimbursement had been agreed upon from the outset
between the Commission and the French Republic on the one
hand, and between the French Republic and Bull on the other              However, it appears from official publications that in 1988,
hand.                                                                    13 % of the total population of the region of Brittany were
                                                                         supplied with water which had, temporarily or permanently, a
                                                                         nitrate concentration of over 50 mg/l.
In addition the French Republic has allowed the period
prescribed to expire without bringing an action for annulment            On expiry of the period laid down by the Commission in its
of the decision, which must therefore be considered final                reasoned opinion, the French authorities admitted that that
against it.                                                              percentage, although it had decreased, was still 2,6 % in 2002.
(1) OJ 2003 L 209, p. 1.                                                 (1) OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11.
Action brought on 28 November 2003 by the Com-                           Action brought on 4 December 2003 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the French                   of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                             Republic                                                                lic of Germany
                         (Case C-505/03)                                                            (Case C-510/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/52)
                          (2004/C 21/51)
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Novem-                ties on 4 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Communities, represented by J.C. Schieferer, with an address
represented by G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti, acting as             for service in Luxembourg.
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions
                                                                               impeding the placing on the market and putting into
1.   declare that, by failing to comply with the requirements                  service of appliances burning gaseous fuel which satisfy
     of the directive in relation to the nitrate content of                    the requirements of Council Directive 90/396/EEC of
     drinking water in Brittany, the French Republic has failed                29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(6) and Annex I of               Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous
     Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980, as                          fuels (1), in particular gas-fuelled water heaters, the Federal
     amended, relating to the quality of water intended for                    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     human consumption (1);                                                    under Article 4 of Directive 90/396/EEC;
2.   order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-602/14 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2014 by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-374/14: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v European Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

         Appeal brought on 23 December 2014 by Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 21 October 2014 in Case T-374/14: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-602/14 P)
   (2015/C 311/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (represented by: A. Mc Donagh, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 4 June 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd to bear its own costs.


title: Case F-143/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/26

         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-143/11)
   2012/C 65/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision not to reimburse a quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, which the defendant was ordered to pay by judgment of 15 February 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission to reject the claims set out in the applicant’s request of 16 August 2011 sent to the Commission in the person of its legal representative pro tempore and to the appointing authority of the Commission;

               —

               Declare that the Commission has abstained from adopting the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment of the Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission, in particular the measures complying with that part of the judgment of 15 February 2011 relating to the costs of the proceedings in that case;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 316,31, which, if and in so far as it is not paid to the applicant, will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from tomorrow and until the day on which payment of that sum takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 per day for each additional day which, with effect from tomorrow, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 180th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 5 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 6 per day for each additional day which, from the 181st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 270th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 6 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 7,50 per day for each additional day which, from the 271st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, up until the 360th day after 17 August 2011, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 7,50 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 per day for each additional day which, from the 361st day after 17 August 2011, passes while the abovementioned abstention persists, ad infinitum, it being necessary for that sum of EUR 10 to be paid at the end of the same day, failing which, or in so far as it is not so paid, it will produce interest in favour of the applicant at the rate of 10 % per annum and with annual capitalisation, with effect from the day following that on which the above payment should have been made and until the day on which the payment takes place;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-25/10: Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — BASF Schweiz and BASF Lampertheim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Withdrawal of the decision — Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

         Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — BASF Schweiz and BASF Lampertheim v Commission
   (Case T-25/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Withdrawal of the decision - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 6/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: BASF Schweiz AG, formerly BASF Speciality Chemicals Holding GmbH (Basel, Switzerland), and BASF Lampertheim GmbH (Lampertheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag and T. Wilson, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in so far as those provisions concern the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of that decision.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-302/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Zino Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost (Trade marks — International registration — Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 146 — International registration and a Community trade mark having the same effects in the Community — Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 — Article 5(4) — Goods suspected of infringing a trade mark — Customs action — Proprietor of a Community trade mark — Right to secure action also in Member States other than the Member State in which the application is lodged — Extension to the holder of an international registration)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — Zino Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost
   (Case C-302/08) (1)

   (Trade marks - International registration - Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 146 - International registration and a Community trade mark having the same effects in the Community - Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 - Article 5(4) - Goods suspected of infringing a trade mark - Customs action - Proprietor of a Community trade mark - Right to secure action also in Member States other than the Member State in which the application is lodged - Extension to the holder of an international registration)
   2009/C 205/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA

      Defendant: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München — Interpretation of Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — The right to make an application to the customs authorities to take action which, apart from seeking action to be taken by the customs authorities in the Member State in which the application is made, seeks action from customs authorities of one or more other Member States, exists only for the proprietors of Community trade marks — Extension of that right to proprietors of internationally registered trade marks within the meaning of Article 146 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark — Legal effects of the accession of the European Community to the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, read in the light of Article 146 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003, is to be interpreted as allowing the holder of an internationally registered trade mark to secure action by the customs authorities of one or more other Member States, besides that of the Member State in which it is lodged, just like the proprietor of a Community trade mark.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.