title: Case C-91/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region Wien)

text:
15.6.2002             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-               1.   Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on                 applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale                   therein as trade marks?
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
                          Region Wien)                               2.   If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
                                                                          when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
                         (Case C-91/02)                                   practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?
                        (2002/C 144/24)
                                                                     (1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                     richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian       the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event                      against Land Baden-Württemberg
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code                                     (Case C-102/02)
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,                                (2002/C 144/26)
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                     Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
                                                                     Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
                                                                     ing questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-                    1.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in                  Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against                       general system for the recognition of higher-education
                         Putsch GmbH                                      diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
                                                                          cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
                        (Case C-100/02)                                   applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
                                                                          directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
                                                                          not been correctly transposed into national law?
                        (2002/C 144/25)
                                                                     2.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
                                                                          Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
                                                                          general system for the recognition of professional edu-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                    directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the            measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in              purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch                those provisions of the directive as against all national
GmbH on the following questions:                                          provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?


title: Case C-300/02: Action brought on 26 August 2002 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
(2) order the Netherlands Government to pay the costs.                 Action brought on 26 August 2002 by the Hellenic
                                                                       Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (Case C-300/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/13)
(As to the conditions concerning the status as Community
nationals of the shareholders and directors of companies,
pursuant to Article 311(3) of the Wetboek van Koophandel)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
It follows from the wording of Article 48 EC that a company’s
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
connection with the Community may not be based on the
nationality of the persons owning or managing it, but rather           Communities on 26 August 2002 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                       represented by Ioannis Khalkias and Georgios Kanellopoulos.
on the following circumstances:
(1) incorporation of the company in accordance with the
       laws of a Member State; and                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2) maintenance by the company of its registered office,               —     annul Decision C(2002) 2281 final of 26 June 2002 (1)
       central administration or principal place of business                 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
       within the Community.                                                 incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
                                                                             Section of the EAGGF, in so far as it relates to financial
                                                                             corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic in
A condition requiring possession of the status of a Community                the arable crops sector;
national cannot constitute an appropriate means by which a
Member State may exercise control, as required by Article 91
of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, over sea-going             —     allow the present application and annul or, in the
vessels which fly its flag. The Commission is unable to see                  alternative, amend the contested Commission decision
what advantage the authority of a Member State having                        with regard to its particular chapters concerning financial
responsibility for the shipping register may derive from the                 corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Greek, Finnish or French nationality of the actual managers of
a shipping company which would be denied to it if those
managers were Japanese or American nationals. The argument
that, in order for the State whose flag a vessel flies to be able
to exercise actual control over that vessel, the shareholders
must be Community nationals, is equally disputable.                    Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     Incorrect legislative interpretation;
(As to the condition concerning the status as Community
                                                                       —     incorrect interpretation and application of Article 5(2)(c)
nationals of the persons responsible for the day-to-day man-
                                                                             of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70;
agement and of the directors of a shipping company, pursuant
to Article 311(1)(c) of the Wetboek van Koophandel and
Article 8:169 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek)                               —     incorrect assessment of the facts;
The Commission refers to its submissions concerning its first          —     defective statement of reasons;
plea in law. It maintains that it can find no justification for a
measure whereby a company may have a sea-going vessel
registered in the Netherlands where the day-to-day manage-             —     breach of the principle of proportionality.
ment of the company is entrusted to a Community national,
regardless of the latter’s place of residence, but prohibiting
registration where such day-to-day management is entrusted
                                                                       (1 ) OJ No L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 77.
to a national of a third country who resides in the Netherlands.


title: Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco against the European Parliament (Case T-92/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 233/21
principles of equality of treatment between candidates and           The applicant argues, first, that in view of the special needs
of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of          of the service for which he was appointed, it was necessary
officials . The administration is bound, therefore, to ensure        to recruit a candidate with proven professional experience
that the tests are held in a regular manner and, in the event        enabling him to be immediately operational. The applicant
that an irregularity or incident is found to have occurred, to       maintains that those special needs justify the application of
draw up a report for the competition selection board .               Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, his
                                                                     own recruitment to grade C 4 .
The applicant maintains that, since in the present case the
administration has failed to establish that she did not hand         Secondly, the applicant argues that, in assessing the
in the form containing her answer to thé third written test in       professional experience of the candidates in application of
the competition, that form must be deemed to have been               paragraph IV 'conditions of employment' of the notice of
handed in . She considers that, having failed to produce any         competition, the appointing authority acted contrary to the
evidence to the contrary, the defendant cannot refuse to             principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, and
admit her to the second part of the written tests on the             in breach of its duty to protect legitimate expectations, by
ground that she did not take part in all the tests in the first      using different criteria in the case of the first two persons
part .                                                               placed on the list of suitable candidates (who were recruited
                                                                     to grade C 4 ) from those applied in the applicant's case .
The applicant accordingly pleads that the contested decision
was adopted in breach of the duty to have regard for the             Lastly, the applicant asserts that the contested decision is
welfare and interests of officials and the right to a fair           vitiated by the failure to state relevant reasons or, at the very
hearing, and that it is vitiated by a manifest error.                least, failure to give sufficient reasons, in so far as the
                                                                     Parliament did not disclose the criteria used by the
                                                                     appointing authority to assess whether the applicant's
                                                                     qualifications warranted an appointment to the higher
                                                                     grade in his career bracket.
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco
               against the European Parliament
                        ( Case T-92/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233/36 )                            Action brought on 14 June 1996 by Catherine Presle against
                                                                     the European Centre for the Development of Vocational
                                                                                Training ( Cedefop )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                ( Case T-93/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/37 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 June 1996 by Roberto Monaco,                                       (Language of the case: German)
residing at Capellen ( Luxembourg ), represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             An action against the European Centre for the Development
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) was brought before the
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      14 June 1 996 by Catherine Presle, of Berlin, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann
                                                                     &C Sedemund, 13 Place des Barricades, Brussels .
— annul the Parliament's decision of 22 August 1995 in so
     far as it appoints the applicant to grade C 5 ,                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the Parliament to pay the costs .                            — annul the decision of the Director of the European
                                                                          Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       ( Cedefop ) of 22 May 1996 ,
The applicant entered the service of the European                    — order the European Centre for the Development of
Parliament in 1980 as a skilled employee in grade D 3 and                 Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) to pay the costs .
was subsequently promoted to grade D 2 ( in 1982 ) and then
to grade D 1 ( in 1991 ). He took part in open competition           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
PE/115/C, organized for the purpose of constituting a
reserve for the recruitment of clerical assistants ( grades C 4      The applicant is an official of the European Centre for the
and C 5 ), and was placed third on the list of successful            Development of Vocational Training ( Cedefop ), the seat of
candidates . By decision of 25 August 1995 , he was                  which was moved on 1 September 1995 from Berlin to
appointed to grade C 5 in the clerical assistant career              Thessaloniki . In the course of the implementation of the
bracket. He contests that decision, maintaining that he               accompanying measures adopted for the organization of the
should have been appointed to grade C 4 .                             social aspects of the move , employees who were unable for


title: Case C-12/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2016 — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Autorità portuale di Genova

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2016 — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Autorità portuale di Genova
   (Case C-12/16)
   (2016/C 111/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ignazio Messina & C. SpA

      Defendant: Autorità portuale di Genova

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to an Italian port?

               2.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions and/or duties and/or activities not expressly funded by that fee?

               3.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions by entities other than that which receives the fee?

               4.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions but no determination has been made of the individual costs to be covered, so that it is not possible to verify, either beforehand or afterwards, the costs of which services have in fact been covered [or] in what way and to what extent that fee has in fact funded those services?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1).


title: Case C-295/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 June 2014 — DOW Benelux and Others v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 June 2014 — DOW Benelux and Others v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-295/14)
   2014/C 303/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: DOW Benelux BV, Esso Nederland BV, ExxonMobil Chemical Holland BV, Kuwait Petroleum Europoort BV, Rütgers Resins BV, Koppers Netherlands BV, Yara Sluiskil BV, BP Raffinaderij Rotterdam BV, Zeeland Refinery NV, ESD-SIC BV, DSM Delft Permit BV, SABIC Innovative Plastics BV, Shell Nederland Raffinaderij BV, Shell Nederland Chemie BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals BV, Emerald Kalama Chemical BV, Nedmag Industries Mining & Manufacturing Holding BV, Rosier Nederland BV, Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV, Tata Steel IJmuiden BV, Chemelot Site Permit BV, Eska Graphic Board BV, Koch HC Partnership BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that operators of installations to which, as from the beginning of 2013, the emissions-trading rules laid down in 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) have been applicable, with the exception of operators of the installations referred to in Article 10a(3) of that directive and of newcomers, could undoubtedly have brought an action before the General Court seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor is determined by that decision?

               2.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU, in so far as the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor is determined thereby, invalid because that decision was not adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC?

               3.

               Is Article 15 of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1) contrary to Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC because the former article precludes emissions from electricity generators from being taken into account in the determination of the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor? If so, what are the consequences of that conflict for Decision 2013/448/EU?

               4.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU, in so far as the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor is determined thereby, invalid because that decision is based on, inter alia, data submitted pursuant to Article 9a(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC without the provisions to be adopted pursuant to Article 14(1), referred to in Article 9a(2), having been established?

               5.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU, in so far as the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor is determined thereby, contrary to, in particular, Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) on the ground that the quantities of emissions and emission allowances which determined the calculation of the correction factor are set out only partially in that decision?

               6.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU, in so far as the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor is determined thereby, contrary to, in particular, Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the ground that that correction factor was determined on the basis of data of which the operators of the installations involved in emissions trading could not have become aware?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case T-72/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014  — Pilkington Group and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in carglass — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Fines — Rights of defence — Retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Passive or minor role — Deterrent effect of the fine — Taking into account fines previously imposed — Ceiling of the fine — Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014 — Pilkington Group and Others v Commission
   (Case T-72/09) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in carglass - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Fines - Rights of defence - Retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Passive or minor role - Deterrent effect of the fine - Taking into account fines previously imposed - Ceiling of the fine - Exchange rate for the calculation of the ceiling of the fine))
   (2015/C 056/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom); Pilkington Automotive Ltd (Lathom, United Kingdom); Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH (Witten, Germany); Pilkington Holding GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany); and Pilkington Italia SpA (San Salvo, Italy) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking, K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors, J. Turner QC, A. Bates, Barrister, C. Puech Baron and D. Katrana, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Biolan and M. Kellerbauer, subsequently by A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and N. von Lingen and lastly by A. Biolan, M. Kellerbauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.125 — Carglass), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009 and also by Commission Decision C(2013) 1119 final of 28 February 2013, in so far as it concerns the applicants, and also, in the alternative, for annulment of Article 2 of that decision in that it imposes a fine on the applicants or, in the further alternative, application for reduction of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Pilkington Group Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Ltd, Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH, Pilkington Holding GmbH and Pilkington Italia SpA to bear 90 % of their own costs and to pay all of the costs incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear 10 % of the costs incurred by the applicants.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-162/02: Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
27.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 180/31
Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                     —     Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
                                                                                4 March 2002 in Case R 782/2000-3 concerning the
                         (Case T-162/02)                                        opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the
                                                                                Community trade mark No 49106 CAPOL against the
                         (2002/C 180/53)                                        application for registration of the Community trade mark
                                                                                No 000195370 ‘ARCOL’;
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, established in
Alava (Spain), represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri.                    Applicant for the Com-         Atlantic Richfield Company (part
                                                                          munity trade mark:             of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The Community trade            Word mark ‘ARCOL’ for goods in
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the             mark concerned:                Classes 1, 17 and 20 (including
      OHIM of 28 February 2002;                                                                          chemical substances for pre-
                                                                                serving foodstuffs) — Application
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                   No 195370
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to     The applicant
                                                                          the trade mark or sign
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                          sition in the opposition
The Community trade             Figurative mark depicting a ‘rey          proceedings:
mark concerned:                 de espadas’ (king of spades) —
                                Registered        trade       mark        Trade mark or sign             Community trade mark ‘CAPOL’
                                No 0000089961 for goods                   asserted by way of oppo-       for Class 1 (chemical substances
                                within Class 16 (playing cards)           sition in the opposition       for preserving foodstuffs) —
                                                                          proceedings:                   Registered under No 49106
(See the information for Case T-160/02 Heraclio Fournier v
OHIM)                                                                     Decision of the Oppo-          Dismissal of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
                                                                          Grounds of claim:              —    The applicant was not infor-
Action brought on 24 May 2002 by Kaul GmbH against                                                            med of the change of party
Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                                                           submitting the application
              (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                                                                for registration of a Com-
                                                                                munity trade mark
                         (Case T-164/02)
                                                                                —    under Regulation No 40/
                                                                                94 (1), it is permissible to
                         (2002/C 180/54)                                                                      put forward new facts in the
                                                                                course of proceedings
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was                                        —    Error of assessment of the
                          drafted: German)                                                                    likelihood of confusion pur-
                                                                                suant to Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation No 40/94.
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    Community trade mark.
24 May 2002 by Kaul GmbH, whose registered office is in
Elmshorn (Germany), represented by G. Würtenberger and
R. Kunze, lawyers.


title: Case F-44/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Pohjanmäki v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Respective roles of the Appointing Authority and of the JCC — Absence of staff reports — Failure by members of the JCC to consult staff reports — Compatibility of the functions of the rapporteur with the JCC and of the former assessor — Manifest error of assessment — Seniority in grade — Level of responsibilities exercised — Duty of care)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/44

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Pohjanmäki v Council
   (Case F-44/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Respective roles of the Appointing Authority and of the JCC - Absence of staff reports - Failure by members of the JCC to consult staff reports - Compatibility of the functions of the rapporteur with the JCC and of the former assessor - Manifest error of assessment - Seniority in grade - Level of responsibilities exercised - Duty of care))
   (2015/C 213/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jaana Pohjanmäki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, E. Rebasti and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   The application, first, to annul the Council’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 and, second, to award damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Declares that Ms Pohjanmäki is to bear half of her own costs;

               3)

               Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Pohjanmäki.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 46.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 June 2004 in Case T-190/02: Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Absence treated as a period of annual leave — Time-limits — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 24 June 2004
   in Case T-190/02: Anita Jannice Österholm v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Absence treated as a period of annual leave - Time-limits - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 228/84)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-190/02: Anita Jannice Österholm, residing at Stockholm (Sweden), represented by J.R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris assisted by A. Dal Ferro, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision to treat the applicant's absence between 8 and 31 July 2000 as a period of annual leave — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; for the Registrar: I. Natsinas, Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.


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


title: Case T-388/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission (State aid — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Publication of a summary notice — No significant effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility — Status as party concerned — Admissibility — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — No serious difficulties)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission
   (Case T-388/02) (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Publication of a summary notice - No significant effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility - Status as party concerned - Admissibility - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - No serious difficulties)
   (2009/C 32/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe, Germany); and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (Heiligengrabe) (represented initially by: R. Nierer, subsequently by R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Zellstoff Stendal GmbH (Arneburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and K.U. Karl, subsequently by T. Müller-Ibold, lawyers); Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents); and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany) (represented by: C. von Donat and G. Quardt, lawyers)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections to aid granted by the German authorities to Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities and by Zellstoff Stendal GmbH and Land Sachsen-Anhalt.

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.


title: Case C-317/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/28

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-317/14)
   2014/C 303/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that, in requiring persons applying for positions with local services established in French-speaking or German-speaking regions who do not have diplomas or certificates to show that they have completed their studies in the language concerned to obtain the certificate issued by SELOR (having taken the exam organised by that body), and in making that certificate the only way in which those persons can prove that they have the language skills needed for such positions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (1)

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The condition, set out in Belgian legislation, under which persons applying for vacant positions with local public services in French-speaking or German-speaking regions who do not have diplomas to show that they have completed their studies in the language concerned are required to prove their language skills before they can fill such positions and are given only one way in which they can do so constitutes discrimination prohibited by Article 45 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 492/2011.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 May 1995 in Case T-241/94, Friedrich Nagel v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Annual leave - Travel expenses - Excess baggage charges)

text:
8 . 7 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 174/7
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                        of 30 May 1995                                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1
                                                                         Rue Glesener, against the Commission of the European
in Case T-556/93 : Monique Saby v. Commission of the                     Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for,
                  European Communities (')                               first, the annulment of the Commission's decision of
(Officials — Accidents and professional diseases —                       1 7 August 1993 not to reimburse the excess baggage charges
Reopening of the accident file and full reimbursement of                 incurred by the applicant's wife on a journey by air between
                       medical expenses)                                 the applicant's place of origin and place of work, and ,
                           ( 95 /C 174/ 11 )                             secondly, an order that the Commission reimburse those
                                                                         charges, the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
               (Language of the case: French)                            composed of: K. Lenaerts ( President of the Chamber ), R.
                                                                         Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas , Judges; B. Pastor,
In Case T-556/93 : Monique Saby, a former official of the                Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 May 1995 , the operative
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   part of which is as follows:
Mérète Turlin and Aloyse May, of the Luxembourg Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at their
Chambers, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European                    1 . the Commission decision of 17 August 1993 is
Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto                     annulled;
Dal Ferro ) — application, primarily, for the annulment of
the decision of the Commission of 3 August 1993 rejecting                2 . the Commission is ordered to pay the applicant Bfrs
the complaint submitted by the applicant on 3 May 1993 , in                   22 800, together with interest of 8% per annum, as
which she sought the reopening of her ' accident file ' and full              from 17 August 1993 until the date of effective
reimbursement, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff                            payment;
Regulations of officials of the European Communities , of
the medical and paramedical expenses incurred in respect of              3.   the Commission shall hear all the costs .
the care needed for her re-establishment and rehabilitation,
together with default interest at the rate of 8,5 % per annum
from 1 July 1991 ; alternatively, for the setting-up of a new            (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
medical committee with the task of taking a decision on the
causal connection between the care in question and the
accident justifying full reimbursement of the medical and
paramedical expenses relating to it and the award of the
compensation provided for by Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and A.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
30 May 1995 , in which it :
                                                                                of 17 May 1995
 1 . dismisses the application ;                                         in Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                           of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 95/C 174/ 13 )
 (') OJ No C 334 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  In Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau, a member of the
                        of 17 May 1995                                    temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
 in Case T-241/94 , Friedrich Nagel v. Commission of the                  Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar, v.
                  European Communities (')
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
 (Officials — Annual leave — Travel expenses — Excess                     Griesmar and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for
                        baggage charges)                                  suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
                            ( 95 /C 174/ 12 )                             Director-General of the Joint Research Centre, Ispra,
                                                                          contained in his note of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily
                (Language of the case: French)                            transferring the applicant to Ispra as Adviser to the Head of
                                                                          the Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics — the
 In Case T-241 /94 : Friedrich Nagel, official of the                     President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   17 May 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case T-72/00: Action brought on 28 March 2000 by Steffen Skovmand against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/31
— order the Community to pay the costs;                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
— adopt such further measures as might reasonably be found               — annul the decision of ‘the Steering Committee’, as con-
    necessary.                                                               tained in the memorandum of I. Boag of 28 January 2000,
                                                                             to assign the applicant to Brussels, to his DG of origin;
                                                                         — in the alternative, award to the applicant compensation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              for the non-material damage suffered and provisionally
                                                                             quantify the damage, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
The applicants in this case, who are battery manufacturers               — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
exporting to the USA, claim compensation for losses suffered
by them following the adoption by the USA of certain
commercial retaliation measures affecting their industry. On
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
9 September 1997, the Appeals Body of the World Trade
Organisation ruled that various measures laid down under the
Community scheme for importing bananas were contrary to                  The applicant, assigned to the Commission Delegation in
GATT 1994 and the GATS, and called upon the Community                    Romania, contests the decision to reassign him to headquarters
to bring its measures into line with the obligations under those         in Brussels, as part of the rotation exercise for 2000. He claims
trade agreements. Following that ruling, the USA subjected               that the decision in question is flawed in numerous ways, in
imports of stationary batteries to a duty equivalent to 100 %            that it:
of their value, with effect from 3 March 1999.
                                                                         — is not based on a statement of reasons;
In support of their claims, the applicants argue:                        — was taken in breach of the procedure applicable to
                                                                             decisions on rotation; and
— that the retaliatory measures in question were the direct
    consequence of the Community maintaining in force a                  — infringed his rights to be informed and to be heard
    system of rules which the WTO had already ruled unlawful;                beforehand.
— that in this case there has been a serious breach of a
    number of higher legal rules protecting individuals, such
    as the principle of ‘pacta sunt servanda’, the protection of
    legitimate expectations, legal certainty, the right to prop-
    erty, and the right to pursue an economic activity, and also
    of the principle of sound administration.
                                                                         Action brought on 31 March 2000 by Augusto Fichtner
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-75/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 135/55)
Action brought on 28 March 2000 by Steffen Skovmand                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-72/00)                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 31 March 2000 by Augusto Ficht-
                                                                         ner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar.
                        (2000/C 135/54)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        — annul as manifestly unfounded in fact and in law the
                                                                             Commission’s decision of 30 September 1999, removing
                                                                             him from his post without loss of pension rights;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               — order the Commission to pay compensation of not less
European Communities on 28 March 2000 by Steffen                             than EUR 50000 for material and non-material damage,
Skovmand, residing in Bucharest, represented by Georges                      the exact amount to be determined by the Court of First
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar.                                           Instance;


title: Case C-42/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/28

         Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-42/09)
   (2009/C 69/52)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and E. Vesco, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/45/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States and amending Directive 2001/25/EC and, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive.

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2005/45/EC expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 160.


title: Case F-130/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Verile and Gjergji v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme — Regulation adjusting the rate of contribution to the European Union pension scheme — Adjustment of actuarial values — Need to adopt general implementing provisions — Temporal application of the new general implementing provisions — Withdrawal of a proposal for crediting of pensionable years — Lawfulness — Conditions)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Verile and Gjergji v Commission
   (Case F-130/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights acquired in a national pension scheme - Regulation adjusting the rate of contribution to the European Union pension scheme - Adjustment of actuarial values - Need to adopt general implementing provisions - Temporal application of the new general implementing provisions - Withdrawal of a proposal for crediting of pensionable years - Lawfulness - Conditions)
   2014/C 31/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions transferring pension rights acquired before entry into the Commission’s service based on the recalculated proposal of the PMO.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 20 May 2011 and of 19 May 2011 addressed respectively to Mr Verile and Ms Gjergji;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Verile and Ms Gjergji.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 22.


title: Case T-114/07: Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 13 April 2007 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)
   (Case T-114/07)
   (2007/C 129/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Last Minute Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Last Minute Tour SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Quash in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the respondent, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), dated 8 February 2007;

               —

               declare CTM No 1 552 231 invalid in respect of classes 39 and 42;

               —

               award the costs against the respondent.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘LAST MINUTE TOUR ’for products and services in classes 16, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 552 231

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Last Minute Tour SpA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national non-registered word mark ‘LASTMINUTE.COM ’for services in classes 39 and 42

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark for the services in classes 39 and 42 and rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity for the goods in class 16

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly decided that the applicant's non registered trade mark did not confer on him the right to prohibit the use in the United Kingdom of the trade mark applied for and as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the test to establish likelihood of confusion.


title: Case C-48/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth) — Adam Opel AG v Autec AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade Marks — Article 5(1)(a) and (2), and Article 6(1)(b) of the First Directive 89/104/EEC — Right of a trade mark proprietor to prevent use by a third party of a sign identical or similar to the trade mark — Trade mark registered for motor vehicles and for toys — Reproduction of the trade mark by a third party on scale models of that make of vehicle)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth) — Adam Opel AG v Autec AG
   (Case C-48/05) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade Marks - Article 5(1)(a) and (2), and Article 6(1)(b) of the First Directive 89/104/EEC - Right of a trade mark proprietor to prevent use by a third party of a sign identical or similar to the trade mark - Trade mark registered for motor vehicles and for toys - Reproduction of the trade mark by a third party on scale models of that make of vehicle)
   (2007/C 56/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth, Germany
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adam Opel AG

      Defendant: Autec AG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(b) of Directive No 89/104/EEC: First Directive of the Council to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40, p. 1) — Right of the proprietor of a trademark to oppose its use by a third person — Reproduction of the logo of a motor vehicle manufacturer on toy cars
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Where a trade mark is registered both for motor vehicles — in respect of which it is well known — and for toys, the affixing by a third party, without authorisation from the trade mark proprietor, of a sign identical to that trade mark on scale models of vehicles bearing that trade mark, in order faithfully to reproduce those vehicles, and the marketing of those scale models:

                           —

                           constitute, for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, a use which the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prevent if that use affects or is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for toys;

                           —

                           constitute, within the meaning of Article 5(2) of that directive, a use which the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prevent — where the protection defined in that provision has been introduced into national law — if, without due cause, use of that sign takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for motor vehicles.

               2)

               Where a trade mark is registered, inter alia, in respect of motor vehicles, the affixing by a third party, without the authorisation of the proprietor of the trade mark, of a sign identical to that mark to scale models of that make of vehicle, in order faithfully to reproduce those vehicles, and the marketing of those scale models, do not constitute use of an indication concerning a characteristic of those scale models, within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-132/01: Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
of the applicant, who lives with his partner and was therefore            the fact that the Community market had failed to strengthen
unable to provide a lease or title deeds or telephone, gas or             or even maintain, its position on the market, and the fact that
electricity bills in his own name. The applicant further claims           Community steel producers had to bear negative effects, in the
infringement of the principle of proper administration, good              form of additional costs brought by the measures in particular,
management and the duty to have regard to the welfare of                  which cumulated while those measures were in force.
officials.
                                                                          In this respect the applicant companies claim that a manifest
                                                                          error of assessment has occurred. They dwell particularly on
                                                                          the fact that the Commission could not call into question the
                                                                          position adopted by the Council in 1993/1994 on Community
                                                                          interest.
Action brought on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages, Péchiney                  In support of their claims, they also submit that the following
Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys A.B. and Ferroatlantica                 provisions of the basic regulation on anti-dumping have been
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      infringed:
                          (Case T-132/01)                                 —     Article 11(2) and Article 2 in so far as those provisions
                                                                                prohibit the taking into account of a period prior to the
                          (2001/C 227/61)                                       measures in force which are under review;
                                                                          —     Article 21(2) and (5) in that the Commission took into
                                                                                account information submitted by users beyond the time
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                limit set by the notice of initiation of the review
                                                                                proceedings;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     Article 21(5), in considering that the information submit-
European Communities on 16 June 2001 by Euroalliages,                           ted by the users was representative. In that respect it can
whose registered office is in Brussels, Péchiney Electrométallur-               be noted that the users who submitted information
gie, whose registered office is in Courbevoie (France) Vargon                   represented 10 % of Community consumption;
Alloys A.B., whose registered office is in Vargön (Sweden) and
                                                                          —     Article 21(7) in so far as the Commission took into
Ferroatlantica, whose registered office is in Madrid, represented
                                                                                account information submitted by users which was
by D Voillemot and Olivier Prost, Lawyers.
                                                                                unsubstantiated by actual evidence;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               —     Article 6(6) as well as infringement of the right to a fair
—     annul the sole article of Commission Decision of 21 Feb-                  hearing by refusing to organise a meeting with the users
      ruary 2001 terminating the anti-dumping procedure                         to allow for exchange of views.
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil,
      the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia,
      Ukraine and Venezuela, with regard to those imports
      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Russia,
      Ukraine and Kazakhstan;
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-137/99 and
                                                                                T-18/00 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (2001/C 227/62)
Since the applicant companies in the present case are part of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
the Community ferro-silicon industry, they object to the
Commission’s decision to terminate the anti-dumping pro-
cedure with regard to the importation of ferro-silicon originat-          By order of 3 April 2001, the President of the Court of First
ing in the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Ukraine. That Decision is based on the consideration that the             removal of the name of Athanasia Chrissanthaki from the list
maintenance of measures previously adopted against those                  of applicants in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00 Natalia
four countries would ‘clearly’ be contrary to the interests of            Martinez Páramo and Others v Commission of the European
the Community. To arrive at this conclusion, the defendant                Communities.
claims to have taken into account the period in which those
measures had been in place, assumed to have begun in 1987,                (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99 and C 79 of 18.3.00.


title: Case C-331/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2015 in Case T-402/12 Carl Schlyter v European Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/27

         Appeal brought on 3 July 2015 by the French Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2015 in Case T-402/12 Carl Schlyter v European Commission

   (Case C-331/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and F. Fize, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Carl Schlyter, European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

   The French Government claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the General Court on 16 April 2015 in Case T 402/12, Carl Schlyter v Commission, inasmuch as that judgment annulled the decision of the European Commission of 27 June 2012 refusing, during the standstill period, access to a detailed opinion concerning a draft Order relating to the content and submission conditions of the annual declaration of nanoparticle substances (2011/673/F), which had been notified to it by the French authorities pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   By its appeal submitted on 3 July 2015, the French Government requests the Court of Justice of the European Union, pursuant to Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to set aside the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the General Court on 16 April 2015 in Case T 402/12, Carl Schlyter v Commission (‘the judgment under appeal’).
   In support of its appeal, the French Government puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   In support of that ground of appeal, the French Government submits that the General Court committed a number of errors of law in relation to the classification of the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (‘Directive 98/34’) and in relation to the application of the exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations provided for in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘Regulation No 1049/2001’).

      In the first place, the French Government submits that the General Court committed an error of law in refusing to classify the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34 as an investigation within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
   In that regard, the French Government point outs, first, that the definition of the concept of investigation given by the General Court in the judgment under appeal is not based on any definition established by Regulation No 1049/2001, Directive 98/34 or the case law.
   Moreover, secondly, that definition is not consistent with the approach taken by the Eighth Chamber of the General Court in its judgment of 25 September 2014 in Case T-306/12 Spirlea v Commission. In that judgment, the General Court recognised that the so-called ‘EU Pilot’ procedure may be classified as an investigation within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. According to the French Government, the purpose and constituent elements of the so-called ‘EU Pilot’ procedure bear striking similarities to the purpose and constituent elements of the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34.
   Thirdly, in the event that the Court endorses the definition of the concept of investigation contained in the judgment under appeal, the French Government considers that the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34 conforms to that definition in any event, taking into account its purpose and constituent elements.

      In the second place, the French Government considers, first, that the General Court committed an error of law in holding, in the alternative, that, even if the detailed opinion delivered by the Commission forms part of an investigation within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the disclosure of that document does not necessarily undermine the purpose of the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34.
   In that regard, the French Government point outs that the applicant did not at any time in his initial application, his reply or his observations on the statements in intervention raise the argument that, if the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34 were to constitute an investigation, disclosure of the contested document would not undermine the purpose of that investigation.
   Consequently, in so far as the plea raised by the General Court in the alternative was not raised by the applicant and relates to the substantive legality of the contested decision, the French Government considers that, in paragraphs 84 to 88 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court committed an error of law in raising that plea of its own motion.
   Secondly, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the purpose of the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34 is to prevent the adoption, by a national legislature, of a national technical regulation which constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of goods, the free movement of services or the freedom of establishment of service operators within the internal market (paragraph 85 of the judgment under appeal).
   The French Government considers that the General Court thus gave a restrictive interpretation of the purpose of the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34.
   The French Government takes the view that, in addition to the objective of securing the conformity of national rules, the procedure laid down by Directive 98/34 also pursues an objective relating to the quality of the dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case F-48/10: Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Z v Court of Justice

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/42

         Action brought on 22 June 2010 — Z v Court of Justice
   (Case F-48/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to impose on the applicant a disciplinary measure in the form of a written warning and for an order that the defendant pay a sum by way of compensation for non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 July 2009 imposing a disciplinary measure on the applicant in the form of a written warning.

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decision of 10 March 2010, received on 15 March 2010, rejecting the complaint.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay a sum of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage.

               —

               Order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-199/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 April 2014  — János Kárász v Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 22 April 2014 — János Kárász v Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság
   (Case C-199/14)
   2014/C 245/05
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: János Kárász

      Defendant: Nyugdíjfolyósító Igazgatóság

      Question referred

   May Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that cases of cessation, interruption or suspension of the payment of a retirement pension to which an entitlement has arisen because a certain age has been reached constitute an infringement of the right to property laid down in that provision?


title: Case C-34/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Padova, Italy lodged on 28 January 2008 — Azienda Agricola Disarò Antonio v Cooperativa Milka 2000 S.C. a r.l.

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Padova, Italy lodged on 28 January 2008 — Azienda Agricola Disarò Antonio v Cooperativa Milka 2000 S.C. a r.l.
   (Case C-34/08)
   (2008/C 92/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Ordinario di Padova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Azienda Agricola Disarò Antonio

      Defendant: Cooperativa Milka 2000 Soc. coop. arl
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 (1) of 29 September 2003, which imposes an additional levy on production of milk and milk products in excess of the national quota allocated, without taking account of periodical updating of the quantity allocated to each Community country following specific verification of the respective quantities produced, compatible with Article 32 of the Treaty and with the aims of the common agricultural policy which that article sets out, such as increasing agricultural productivity, developing technical progress, ensuring rational development of agriculture and also optimising utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour, since that mechanism also has an impact on Italian milk and milk products producers, detracting from a fair standard of living and from development as a result of inadequate remuneration of the factors of production and since Italy is in fact a milk-deficit country (see the government report cited above, paragraph 6.5), forced to import raw material to sustain the industries engaged in the processing and marketing of quality products (see the agricultural report of 15 February 2004, annexed hereto)?

               2.

               Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 compatible with Article 33 EC, in so far as the latter provides for organisation of the common market yet at the same time excludes all discrimination between producers or consumers in the Community, but nevertheless the uniform application of the additional levy, without identification of those producers who are in deficit as compared with those who are producing surpluses, ultimately discriminates against Italian producers belonging to a milk-deficit country?

               3.

               Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 compatible with Article 34 EC in so far as it provides that pursuit of the objectives set out in Article 33 ‘shall exclude any discrimination between producers or consumers within the Community’, whereas such discrimination is created by the regulation, which, for the purpose of the additional levy, requires a uniform contribution both from producers belonging to milk-surplus countries and from those belonging to milk-deficit countries such as Italy?

               4.

               Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September 2003 compatible with the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty in so far as the latter states that Community action ‘shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty’, whereas the uniform application of the additional levy goes further than the aim of creating a common organisation of the market because it perpetuates for average Italian farmers low productivity, low income and the need for permanent reliance on public support?

      (1)  OJ L 270, p. 123.


title: Case T-488/17: Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/40

         Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Ghost — Corporate Management v EUIPO (Dry zone)
   (Case T-488/17)
   (2017/C 309/53)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Ghost — Corporate Management SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. de Barros Araújo, advogada)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Word mark ‘Dry zone’ — Application for registration No 15 498 322

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 June 2017 in Case R 0683/2017-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present appeal and consequently annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2017 in its entirety and consequently substitute the contested decision with one which holds that Case No R 683/2017-2, EUTM No 015498322 Dry Zone was filed in good time, so that the action may be pursued accordingly.

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               First plea: infringement of Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1) and Article 72(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (JO 1995, L 303, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OJ 2015, L 341, p. 21);

               —

               second plea: failure to observe the procedural safeguards to which the appellant is entitled, by not establishing the existence of facts which are not under the control of the applicant or which amount to an incidence of force majeure, in breach of the principle of proportionality;

               —

               third plea: infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.


title: Case F-25/12: Action brought on 21 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/36

         Action brought on 21 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-25/12)
   2012/C 138/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Pradal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the dispute

   Annulment of the Commission decision refusing the applicant the daily subsistence allowance.

      Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority (AIPN) of the European Commission of 21 November 2011 in response to the objection of the applicant to the decision of the Office for the administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) to refuse to grant him the daily subsistence allowance following his entry into service at the European Commission on 1 February 2011;

               —

               decide to grant the applicant the daily subsistence allowance as provided for in Article 71 of the Statute, Article 10(1) of Annex VII to the Statute and Articles 25 and 92 of the CEOS.