title: Case T-711/14: Action brought on 7 October 2014  — Arcofin and Others v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/63

         Action brought on 7 October 2014 — Arcofin and Others v Commission
   (Case T-711/14)
   2014/C 409/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Arcofin SCRL (Schaerbeek, Belgium), Arcopar SCRL (Schaerbeek), and Arcoplus (Schaerbeek) (represented by: R.B. Martens, A. Verlinden and C. Maczkovics, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision entirely insofar as it declares the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market and orders the Belgian State to recover the aid and to make no payment of the guarantee to the individual shareholders of the applicants;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the contested decision insofar as those articles order the Belgian State to recover the aid and to make no payment of the guarantee to the individual shareholders of the applicants;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 (notified under document C(2014) 1021 final) on the State aid implemented by Belgium in the form of a guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (State aid SA.33927 (2012/C) (ex 11/NN)) (OJ 2014 L 284, p. 53).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107(1) TFEU, 108 TFEU and 296, second paragraph, TFEU, of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) of the principle that reasons must be given for legal acts and for procedural rules governing the burden of proof and taking of evidence, inasmuch as the Commission held, wrongly, and without providing reasons, that the applicants were the only actual beneficiaries of the aid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 296, second paragraph, TFEU and of the principle that reasons must be given for legal acts, and an error in the assessment of the facts, inasmuch as the Commission held, wrongly, and without providing reasons, that the guarantee scheme was likely to distort competition with other cooperatives and providers of investment products and to affect trade between Member States.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, infringement of Articles 107(3)(b) TFEU and 108(2) TFEU and a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as the Commission decided, wrongly, that the guarantee scheme was incompatible with the internal market.
               The applicants submit that, if it were State aid, it ought to have been declared compatible with the internal market as being aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the Belgian economy, within the meaning of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, and of the principle of legitimate expectation, inasmuch as the applicants’ legitimate expectation as regards the legality of the measure precluded the Commission from ordering recovery of the aid.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the further alternative, infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU and of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, a misuse of power or, at the very least, a breach of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as a decision by which the Commission requires a Member State to adopt a particular measure in order to abolish the aid, as in the present case the decision ordering the Member State not to make any payment to individual shareholders of the applicants, manifestly exceeds the Commission’s powers or is, at the very least, manifestly disproportionate.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-466/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Meaning — Internet links ( ‘clickable links’ ) giving access to protected works)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd v Retriever Sverige AB
   (Case C-466/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Meaning - Internet links (‘clickable links’) giving access to protected works)
   2014/C 93/18
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea hovrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nils Svensson, Sten Sjögren, Madelaine Sahlman, Pia Gadd

      Defendant: Retriever Sverige AB

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Svea Hovrätt — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Research and monitoring website offering its subscribers a service of access to protected works, in return for payment — Provision by a person other than the author of the work or his assignees of a link on the former’s web page giving access to the work.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision on a website of clickable links to works freely available on another website does not constitute an ‘act of communication to the public’, as referred to in that provision;

               2.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from giving wider protection to copyright holders by laying down that the concept of communication to the public includes a wider range of activities than those referred to in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review procedures are accessible)

text:
C 184/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               2.8.2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            procedures provided for by the abovementioned directive in order
                                                                                to challenge the validity of the decision of the contracting
                                                                                authority not to consider his tender offer as the best bid, on
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                         the ground that that tender was bound to have been eliminated
                                                                                beforehand by the contracting authority for other reasons and
                                                                                that, as a result, he was not or did not risk being harmed by
                            of 19 June 2003                                         the infringement he alleges. In the context of the review
                                                                                procedure to which the aforementioned tenderer is entitled, the
                                                                                tenderer must be allowed to challenge the validity of the ground
in Case C-249/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           for exclusion on the basis of which the review body intends to
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien): Werner Hackermüller v BIG                               conclude that he was not or did not risk being harmed by the
Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and WED Wiener                                     decision the validity of which he challenges.
                 Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (1)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures relating to the award of public supply and public
works contracts — Article 1(3) — Persons to whom review
                       procedures are accessible)
                             (2003/C 184/14)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
In Case C-249/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 in Case C-275/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austria) for a preliminary                    the House of Lords): Sinclair Collis Ltd v Commissioners
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                        of Customs and Excise (1)
Werner Hackermüller and BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft
mbH and WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH — on
the interpretation of Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/               (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(b) — Exempt transac-
EEC of 21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws,                     tions — Letting of immovable property — Meaning —
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the appli-              Cigarette vending machines installed in commercial premises)
cation of review procedures to the award of public supply and
public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                                              (2003/C 184/15)
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                                          (Language of the case: English)
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December             In Case C-275/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations and admin-           EC by the House of Lords for a preliminary ruling in the
      istrative provisions relating to the application of review proce-       proceedings pending before that court between Sinclair Collis
      dures to the award of public supply and public works contracts,         Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the inter-
      as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992               pretation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/
      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of             388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
      public service contracts, does not preclude that the review             the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
      procedures provided for by that directive should be accessible to       system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
      a person seeking the award of a specific public contract only           1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      where he risks being harmed by the infringement alleged by              C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting
      him.                                                                    as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                              Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges;
                                                                              S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
2.    Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June 2003, in
      50, precludes a tenderer being refused access to the review             which it has ruled:


title: Case C-161/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v Belgian State

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2015 — Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal v Belgian State
   (Case C-161/15)
   (2015/C 190/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abdelhafid Bensada Benallal

      Defendant: Belgian State

      Question referred

   Does the general principle of European Union Law upholding the rights of the defence, including the right of an individual to be heard by a national authority before any decision is taken by that authority likely adversely to affect that individual’s interests such as a decision ending that individual’s residence authorisation, carry in the legal system of the European Union an equivalent importance to that held by the rules of public policy in the Belgian legal system, and does the principle of equivalence require that a plea can be raised for the first time before the Conseil d’État hearing an appeal in cassation based on breach of the general principle of EU law of the right to a fair hearing as is permitted in the national law for pleas based on public policy?


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  13 December 2005  in Case C-177/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras in María Cristina Guerrero Pecino v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC (amended by Directive 2002/74/EC) — Compensation agreed at the conciliation — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/15

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 13 December 2005
   in Case C-177/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras in María Cristina Guerrero Pecino v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC (amended by Directive 2002/74/EC) - Compensation agreed at the conciliation - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)
   (2006/C 60/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-177/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain), made by decision of 30 March 2005, received at the Court on 20 April 2005, in the proceedings between María Cristina Guerrero Pecino and Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and E. Juhász, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Where, according to the relevant national legislation, compensation for unfair dismissal awarded by a judgment or administrative decision must be regarded, under national law, as severance pay on termination of employment relationships which falls within Article 3(1) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, compensation of the same type, determined by a judicial conciliation procedure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must also be regarded as severance pay within the meaning of that provision. The national court must leave unapplied domestic legislation which infringes the principle of equality by excluding that compensation from the notion of ‘severance pay’ within the meaning of that legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 25.06.2005.


title: Case F-115/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Vienne and Others v Parliament (Officials — Obligation on the administration to provide assistance — Refusal — Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 — Vienne and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-115/05) (1)

   (Officials - Obligation on the administration to provide assistance - Refusal - Transfer of pension rights acquired in Belgium)
   (2007/C 42/80)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, M. Mustapha-Pacha and A. Bencomo-Weber and, subsequently, J. De Wachter, M. Mustapha-Pacha and K. Zejdova, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Parliament's decision rejecting the requests for assistance submitted by the applicants in connection with the transfer of their pension rights acquired in Belgium and, secondly, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 24 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-427/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2001 in Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment — Competition — Pay television — Joint venture — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Article 85(1) of the Treaty — Negative clearance — Ancillary restrictions — Rule of reason — Article 85(3) of the Treaty — Exemption decision — Duration)

text:
16.2.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 44/11
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 22 November 2001                                                         of 18 September 2001
in Case T-139/98: Amministrazione Autonoma dei Mono-                       in Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6) and Others v
poli di Stato (AAMS) v Commission of the European                                   Commission of the European Communities (1)
                          Communities (1)
                                                                           (Actions for annulment — Competition — Pay television —
(Competition — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82                 Joint venture — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
EC) — Abuse of a dominant position — Italian cigarette                     EC) — Article 85(1) of the Treaty — Negative clearance —
sector — Distribution agreement — Abusive contract terms                   Ancillary restrictions — Rule of reason — Article 85(3) of
           — Abusive conduct — Reduction of fine)                                   the Treaty — Exemption decision — Duration)
                          (2002/C 44/18)                                                              (2002/C 44/19)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-139/98: Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli                    In Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6), established in
di Stato (AAMS), represented by P.G. Ferri and D. Del Gaizo,               Neuilly sur Seine (France), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, established
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                in Nanterre (France), France Télécom, established in Paris
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Mar-                    (France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an address
enco and L. Pignataro) supported by Rothmans International                 for service in Luxembourg, and Télévision française 1 SA
Europe BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represent-              (TF1), established in Paris, represented by P. Dunaud and
ed by S. Crosby, solicitor, with an address for service in                 P. Elsen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Luxembourg, and JT International BV, formerly R.J. Reynolds                against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
International BV, established in Hilversum (Netherlands), rep-             E. Gippini Fournier and K. Wiedner), supported by CanalSatel-
resented by O.W. Brouwer, J.-N. Louis and T. Janssens, lawyers,            lite, established in Paris, represented by L. Cohen-Tanugi and
with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for                F. Brunet, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg
annulment of Commission Decision 98/538/EC of 17 June                      — application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Com-
1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC             mission Decision 1999/242/EC of 3 March 1999 relating to a
Treaty (IV/36.010-F3 — Amministrazione Autonoma dei                        proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.237
Monopoli di Stato) (OJ 1998 L 252, p. 47) and, in the                      — TPS) (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 6) — the Court of First Instance
alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed — the Court of              (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,           and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; E. Sheehan,                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2001, in
Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                which it:
22 November 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.     Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
2.    Orders AAMS to pay the costs of the Commission and of the                   incurred by the Commission and by the intervener.
      interveners and to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.                                                (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case C-373/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Community Customs Code — Article 24 — Non-preferential origin of goods — Origin-conferring processing or working — Silicon blocks originating in China — Separation, crushing and purification of the blocks and the sieving, sorting by size and packaging of the grains in India — Dumping — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 398/2004)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2010 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-373/08) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 24 - Non-preferential origin of goods - Origin-conferring processing or working - Silicon blocks originating in China - Separation, crushing and purification of the blocks and the sieving, sorting by size and packaging of the grains in India - Dumping - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 398/2004)
   2010/C 80/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 15) — Meaning of ‘substantial processing or working’ conferring origin on a product — Cleaning and crushing of silicon metal blocks originating in China and sorting, separating and packaging of the silicon grains thus obtained

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The separation, crushing and purification of silicon metal blocks and the subsequent sieving, sorting and packaging of the silicon grains resulting from the crushing, as carried out in the main proceedings, do not constitute origin-conferring processing or working for the purposes of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code.

               2.

               The examination of the second question raised by the referring court has not revealed any factors of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-415/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2010 — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 August 2010 — Galina Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH
   (Case C-415/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Galina Meister

      Defendant: Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (1) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (2) and Article 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a worker shows that he meets the requirements for a post advertised by an employer, he has a right vis-à-vis that employer, if he does not obtain the post, to information as to whether the employer has engaged another applicant and, if so, as to the criteria on the basis of which that appointment has been made?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative:
               Where the employer does not disclose the requested information, does that fact give rise to a presumption that the discrimination alleged by the worker exists?

      (1)  OJ L 204, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ L 180, p. 22.

      (3)  OJ L 303, p. 16.


18.12.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-211/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-121/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/50)                                                   (1999/C 366/53)
By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of        By order of 6 October 1999 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-211/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-121/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-100/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-227/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/54)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 8 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-100/98: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-227/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-44/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-200/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/52)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/55)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 13 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-44/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.                            from the register of Case C-200/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                         and Northern Ireland.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case T-647/14: Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHMI (DUALSAW)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/19

         Action brought on 2 September 2014 — Infusion Brands v OHMI (DUALSAW)
   (Case T-647/14)
   2014/C 380/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myer Lake Circle Clearwater, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2014 given in Case R 397/2014-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in white, black and green containing the verbal element ‘DUALSAW’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 8 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 27  561

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-394/09: Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/31

         Action brought on 6 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-394/09)
   2009/C 282/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, B. McArdle, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2005/33/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels for Gibraltar and, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose all the ‘marine based’ elements of the Directive for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the Directive had to be transposed expired on 11 August 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 191, p. 59


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Proof of participation in collusion - Fine - Determination of the amount - Statement of reasons)

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/29
          Removal from the register of C-22/95 (1)                 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Amministrativo
                        (98/C 209/60)                              Regionale, Lazio): Nuova Antenna Tre SpA v. Ministero
                                                                   delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni.
By order of 3 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-22/95 (reference for a         (1) OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 May 1998                                                     of 14 May 1998
in Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey v. Commission of the              in Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH v. Commission of
                  European Communities (1)                                         the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Annulment of the decision rejecting the               (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof
applicant's candidature for the post of assistant to the           of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Determination of
Deputy Director of the ITER joint work site at Naka,                           the amount Ð Statement of reasons)
Japan Ð Offer of the post Ð Breach of the agreement Ð                                      (98/C 209/62)
                     Claim for damages)
                        (98/C 209/61)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   In Case T-295/94: Buchmann GmbH, established at
               (Language of the case: English)                     Rinnthal, Germany, represented by Helmut Braun, Rechts-
                                                                   anwalt, Dresden, 21 Bergmannstraûe, Dresden, Germany
                                                                   v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-184/94: Martin O'Casey, a member of the                  Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk Schroeder) Ð
temporary staff of the JET Joint Undertaking, represented          application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, and Teertha          601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
Gupta, Barrister, with an adress for service in Luxembourg         Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                 OJ, L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third
Cessange v. Commission of the European Communities                 Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
(Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Richard Lyal) Ð                Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh,
Application for annulment of the letter from the Deputy            A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Director of the International Thermonuclear Experimental           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Reactor and head of the joint work site at Naka, Japan, of         14 May 1998 in which it:
16 July 1993 informing the applicant that his candidature
for the post of administrative assistant to the said Deputy
Director was rejected and of the decision contained in that        1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
letter to reject his candidature, and for damages to                   Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of
compensate for the material and non-material harm thus                 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
suffered by the applicant Ð the Court of First Instance                of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, R.
García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio                2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
judgment on 12 May 1998 in which it:                                   2 150 000.
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.                           3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                       claims.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     4. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the
                                                                       costs of the proceedings for interim relief.
(1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.


title: Case T-371/09: Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Retractable Technologies. v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/55

         Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Retractable Technologies. v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT)
   (Case T-371/09)
   2009/C 282/103
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Retractable Technologies, Inc. (Little Elm, Texas, United States of America) (represented by: K. Dröge, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park IL, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2009 in Case R 1234/2008-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Retractable Technologies, Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘RT’ for goods in Class 10 (Application No 4 129 037)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Abbott Laboratories

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish word mark ‘RTH’ for goods in Class 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue.

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


title: Case T-473/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Commission v Berrisford (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Examination of comparative merits — Obligation to take into account the fact that the official concerned was included in the reserve)

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Commission v Berrisford
   (Case T-473/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Examination of comparative merits - Obligation to take into account the fact that the official concerned was included in the reserve)
   2009/C 129/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 Berrisford v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking the setting aside of that judgment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders the Commission to bear its own cost and to pay those incurred by Mr Michael Berrisford in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-321/01: Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 56/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.3.2002
Decision of the Board of      rescission of the decision of the          —     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and referral                 sed, on a fair and equitable basis, in the sum of
                              of the case back to the Opposition               10 000 euros and to pay interest at 7 % per annum on
                              Division as regards the goods and                the balance of the pension due from 24 September 2000
                              services not covered by the                      to 1 April 2001;
                              decision of the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Grounds of claim:             —     infringement         of    Ar-
                                    ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                    (EC) No 40/94 (1);                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                              —     no risk of confusion;
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments advanced are broadly similar
                              —     no similarity between the
                                                                         to those put forward in Case T-124/01 Del Vaglio v Com-
                                    allegedly conflicting services.
                                                                         mission (OJ 2001 C 227, p. 31).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 15 December 2001 by Internationaler
                                                                         Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-321/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 56/33)
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del Vaglio
against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (Case T-320/01)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2002/C 56/32)                                 European Communities on 15 December 2001 by Interna-
                                                                         tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., established at Rosbach (Federal Repub-
                                                                         lic of Germany), represented by Hans Kaltenecker, lawyer.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               16 October 2001 by which it refused the applicant’s
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      1996 and 1997 requests for co-financing;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Pietro del
                                                                         —     order the Commission, pursuant to the principle of
Vaglio, residing in London, represented by Georges Vander-
                                                                               reimbursement, to pay the costs, including those resulting
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                               from the procedures before the Ombudsman which the
                                                                               applicant was constrained to incur in order to obtain its
                                                                               entitlement.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul the defendant’s decision of 6 September 2001                  Pleas in law and main arguments
     rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the appli-
     cation to his pension of the weighting for the United
     Kingdom;                                                            The applicant is challenging the Commission’s decision of
                                                                         16 October 2001 rejecting three requests for co-financing
                                                                         which it had made under budget heading B7-6000, concerning
—    order the defendant to apply the weighting for the United           the co-financing of actions with European non-governmental
     Kingdom with retroactive effect from 24 September                   development organisations (NGDOs) in fields relating to
     2000;                                                               developing countries.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 56/19
In that decision, the Commission explains that, in 1993, when              Pleas in law and main arguments
examining previous requests by the applicant for co-financing,
it concluded that the applicant was not eligible for such co-
financing inasmuch as it did not meet the applicable criteria,             In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
and that once the competent departments declare an NGO                     of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
to be ineligible for Community co-financing that decision                  Regulations, breach of the principle of sound administration
automatically results in the rejection of any projects sub-                and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. In
sequently submitted, until such time as the NGO meets the                  particular, the procedure for drawing up the staff report was
eligibility criteria. In the applicant’s view, that approach is not        considerably delayed and was followed without consulting the
in conformity either with European Union law or with the                   ad hoc group, which was essential in view of the union duties
principles of sound administration.                                        undertaken by the applicant.
The applicant also states that the Commission has constantly
maintained, both in the contested decision and in the course
of the procedure which took place before the European
Ombudsman following the complaints lodged by the appli-                    Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Tony Robinson
cant, that the applicant had acted fraudulently in order                       against Commission of the European Communities
to obtain financing funds. The applicant asserts that that
assessment is unfounded and that the contested decision is                                         (Case T-328/01)
therefore unjustified.
                                                                                (2002/C 56/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Tony
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Luciano Lavag-                       Robinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
  noli against Commission of the European Communities                      lawyer.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case T-327/01)
                                                                           —     annul the decision taken at the meeting of the Bureau of
                            (2002/C 56/34)                                       the ESP Parliamentary Group on 6 and 7 March 2001 in
                                                                                Brussels to the effect that, on the proposal of the
                                                                                Secretary-General, the Bureau decided to promote two
                     (Language of the case: French)                              persons other than the applicant to Grade A 3 with effect
                                                                                from 1 March 2001;
                                                                           —     compensate the applicant to the tune of EUR 10 000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Luciano
Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),                Pleas in law and main arguments
represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.
                                                                           In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                           of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                rules of procedure of the secretariat of the socialist group, as
                                                                           well as breach of general principles of law such as the
—     grant the applicant BEF 500 000 (EUR 12 396,49) by                   principles of sound administration, the protection of legitimate
      way of damages in compensation for non-material dam-                 expectations, legal certainty and equal treatment. Furthermore,
      age caused as a result of the failure, to date, to draw up a         the applicant alleges error of assessment, misuse of powers
      definitive staff report for the period 1 July 1997 to                and ultra vires. According to the applicant, consideration of his
      30 June 1999;                                                        merits should have necessarily resulted in his promotion rather
                                                                           than in that of the persons promoted by way of the contested
                                                                           decision.
—     make an appropriate order as to costs ordering the
      defendant to pay the costs and fees.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-432/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directive 89/106/EEC — Decision 3052/95/EC — National approval procedure — Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States — Construction products)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 November 2005
   in Case C-432/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Directive 89/106/EEC - Decision 3052/95/EC - National approval procedure - Failure to take account of approval certificates drawn up in other Member States - Construction products)
   (2006/C 10/03)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-432/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and N. Ruiz, advogado) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 October 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take account of approval certificates issued by other Member States in a procedure, under Article 17 of the General Law on Urban Construction, adopted by Decree-Law No 38/382 of 7 August 1951, for approval of polyethylene pipes imported from those other Member States, and by not informing the Commission of such a measure, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and under Articles 1 and 4(2) of Decision No 3052/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1995 establishing a procedure for the exchange of information on national measures derogating from the principle of the free movement of goods within the Community;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.


title: Case F-89/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 — P v Parliament (Staff case — Temporary staff — European Parliament — Dismissal — Loss of confidence)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/57

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 February 2010 — P v Parliament
   (Case F-89/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Temporary staff - European Parliament - Dismissal - Loss of confidence)
   2010/C 234/103
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr, A. Lukošiūtė and R. Ignătescu, agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant with three months’ notice and, second, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 74.


title: Case T -42/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of  31 May 2006  — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/40

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena v Commission
   (Case T -42/02) (1)

   (2006/C 178/71)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Joined Cases C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, Raad van State, Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Austria, Netherlands, Italy) — Borealis Polyolefine GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (C-191/14), OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (C-192/14), DOW Benelux BV and Others v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (C-295/14), Esso Italiana Srl, Eni SpA, Linde Gas Italia Srl v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-389/14) v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-391/14) v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-392/14), Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-393/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union — Directive 2003/87/EC — Article 10a(5) — Method for allocating allowances — Free allocation of allowances — Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor — Decision 2011/278/EU — Article 15(3) — Decision 2013/448/EU — Article 4 — Annexe II — Validity)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, Raad van State, Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Austria, Netherlands, Italy) — Borealis Polyolefine GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (C-191/14), OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (C-192/14), DOW Benelux BV and Others v Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu (C-295/14), Esso Italiana Srl, Eni SpA, Linde Gas Italia Srl v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (C-389/14) v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-391/14) v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-392/14), Dalmine SpA v Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico (C-393/14)
   (Joined Cases C-191/14, C-192/14, C-295/14, C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading in the European Union - Directive 2003/87/EC - Article 10a(5) - Method for allocating allowances - Free allocation of allowances - Method for calculating the uniform cross-sectoral correction factor - Decision 2011/278/EU - Article 15(3) - Decision 2013/448/EU - Article 4 - Annexe II - Validity))
   (2016/C 243/04)
   Languages of the case: German, Dutch and Italian

      Referring courts

   Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, Raad van State, Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

   (Case C-191/14)

      Applicant: Borealis Polyolefine GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-192/14)

      Applicant: OMV Refining & Marketing GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-295/14)

      Applicants: DOW Benelux BV and Others

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-389/14)

      Applicants: Esso Italiana Srl, Eni SpA, Linde Gas Italia Srl

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      intervening party: Edison SpA
   (Case C-391/14)

      Applicant: Api Raffineria di Ancona SpA

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

      intervening party: Edison SpA
   (Case C-392/14)

      Applicant: Lucchini in Amministrazione Straordinaria SpA

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

      intervening party: Cofely Italia SpA
   (Case C-393/14)

      Applicant: Dalmine SpA

      Defendants: Comitato nazionale per la gestione della direttiva 2003/87/CE e per il supporto nella gestione delle attività di progetto del protocollo di Kyoto, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dello Sviluppo economico

      intervening parties: Cofely Italia SpA, Buzzi Unicem SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The examination of the first four questions in Cases C-191/14 and C-192/14, the third question in Case C-295/14 and the first question in Cases C-389/14 and C-391/14 to C-393/14 has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Article 15(3) 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 in so far as that provision precludes emissions from electricity generators from being taken into account in the determination of the maximum annual amount of allowances;

               2.

               Article 4 of, and Annex II to, 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 are invalid;

               3.

               The temporal effects of the declaration of invalidity of Article 4 of, and Annex II to, Decision 2013/448 are to be limited so that, first, that declaration does not produce effects until 10 months following the date of delivery of this judgment so as to enable the European Commission to adopt the necessary measures and, second, measures adopted during that period on the basis of the invalidated provisions cannot be called into question.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014

      OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Removal from the register of T-163/97 R

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 318/35
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   payment, that is he suffers from an illness which prevents
                                                                      him from performing his normal duties and his invalidity
                                                                      is the result of a mental illness arising from an
This action has been brought against the implied rejection            occupational disease .
of the complaint submitted against the implied rejection of
the request for an invalidity pension .
In support of this application the applicant claims to fulfil
the conditions laid down by the applicable legislation
( Article 78 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 13 and 16                   Removal from the register of T-231/95 ( ')
of Annex VIII thereto ) for entitlement to the said pension:                                       ( 97/C 318/68 )
he suffers total permanent invalidity brought about while
completing periods of pensionable service which prevents
him from pursuing any employment. The medical check                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
up prior to entering the service did not reveal that the
applicant was suffering from any illness or complaint.                By order of 4 July 1997 the President of Second Chamber
                                                                      of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant would observe that the granting of the                  Case T-231 /95 : SIC, Sociedade Independente de
pension is subject to the prior declaration that the                  Comunica^ao SA v. Commission of the European
acceptance of the resignation tendered by the applicant is            Communities .
null and void or non-existent. In this regard the
application refers to the arguments put forward in Case
T-27/97 C v. Commission ( M.                                          (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
(') OJ C 181 , 15 . 6 . 1997, p . 15 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of T- 163/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/69
Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
          Commission of the European Communities                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          ( Case T-250/97)
                                                                      By order of 8 July 1997 the President of the Court of First
                            ( 97/C 318/67)                            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case T-163/97 R:
                                                                      Netherlands Antilles v. Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Communities .
An action against the Commission of the European                      (') OJ C 212, 12 . 7. 1997.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at 2, Calle
Conde de la Cimera, Madrid .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-155/96 (')
The applicant claims that the Court should award him an                                            ( 97/C 318/70 )
invalidity payment following the completion of the
appropriate procedure .                                                              (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   By order of 9 July 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
This action has been brought against the implied rejection            removal from the register of Case T-155/96 : City of Mainz
of the complaint submitted against the implied rejection of           ( Federal Republic of Germany ) v. Commission of the
the request for an invalidity payment as provided for in              European Communities .
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .
                                                                      (') OJ C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
The applicant claims to fulfil all the requirements laid
down by law for entitlement to the abovementioned


title: Case C-328/05 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2005 by SGL Carbon AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03,T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai and Others v Commission of the European Communities, in respect of Case T-91/03

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/7

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2005 by SGL Carbon AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03,T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai and Others v Commission of the European Communities, in respect of Case T-91/03
   (Case C-328/05 P)
   (2005/C 281/14)
   Language of the case: German
   On 30 August 2005, SGL Carbon AG, represented by Martin Klusmann and Frederik Wiemer, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Feldmühleplatz 1, D-40008 Düsseldorf, brought an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai and Others v Commission of the European Communities, in respect of Case T-91/03.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               whilst upholding the submissions made at first instance, partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 15 June 2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03, (1) in so far as it dismissed the action in Case T-91/03 brought against the Commission's decision C(2002) 5083 final, of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 3 of the decision of 17 December 2002 and further reduce the amount of the interest payable pending judgment and the default interest laid down in the operative part of the judgment under appeal, as appropriate;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   The appellant reasons its appeal against the abovementioned judgment of the Court of First Instance by alleging erroneous application of procedural rules and infringement of Community law:

               1.

               It is claimed that, according to the fundamental principle non bis in idem — generally applicable in the laws of the Member States and the Community and also in relation to non-member countries — in the present case, the earlier fine imposed on the appellant in the United States should have been taken into account. The absolute refusal to take account of the previous fines imposed abroad — in infringement of that principle and thus, also of the principle of material justice — is unlawful and does not fall within the discretion of the authority which made the decision or that of the Court of First Instance.

               2.

               No justification was given for increasing the amount of the fine by 35 % as a result of the allegation that the appellant was the sole ringleader, since the indisputable facts and the Court of First Instance's own contradictory findings do not provide a basis for so doing. Since it was not apparent from the Commission's points of complaint that it was intending to consider the appellant as the sole ringleader, the right to a fair hearing was also thereby infringed.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance did not clarify the appellant's objection according to which its rights of defence were irreparably infringed by the inadequate language knowledge of the members of the Commission's team working on the case, and this in spite of the appellant's substantiated submissions and offers to produce evidence.

               4.

               The cooperation provided by the appellant was undervalued. Given that the cooperation which it provided was worth at least as much as that of the other participants it was — by reason of the significantly smaller reduction of its fine in comparison with those of the other participants — the victim of discrimination.

               5.

               The fines imposed were disproportionally high since the fact that the appellant was going through a difficult period at the time of the decision was not taken into account. The Commission and the Court of First Instance could not presume that economic efficiency is generally not to be taken into account when determining the amount of a fine: they must both check whether the fine imposed is economically viable.

               6.

               Finally, the determination of the interest rate was also erroneous: the particularly high interest during the proceedings amounts specifically to an additional fine, for which there is no legal basis.

      (1)  OJ 2005 C 205 of 20 August 2005.


title: Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Augusto Fichtner against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-173/97)

text:
6 . 9 . 97          I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 271 /17
the years 1993 , 1994 and 1995 , which are not                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
representative of the applicant's true capacity for
importing from ACP countries, whereas the three years
                                                                    — annul the Commission decision of 5 March 1997
 1988 , 1989 and 1990 represent the last period during
which Camar was able to operate under normal                             rejecting complaint No R/1691 /96 lodged by the
conditions .                                                             applicant,
                                                                    — order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
The applicant accepts that the absence of Somali bananas                 the material and non-material damage which he
 by reason of the war and the subsequent crisis is outwith               suffered as a result of the conduct complained of in
the Commission's control. That, however, does not release                such an amount as the Court may consider to be
the defendant from responsibility for having failed to take              equitable,
cognizance of the fact that, up to 1995 , there was a
shortfall in Community supply corresponding to the
60 000 tonnes set out in the Annex to Council Regulation            — order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs.
 ( EEC ) No 404/93 as traditional quantities, and that since
 1995, although exports of bananas from Somalia have
resumed, the quantities imported into the Community still           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
fall appreciably below the traditional quantity. The
Commission's liability stems from the fact that, although           The applicant, a Grade B 4 official working at the Joint
it had at its disposal the necessary powers conferred by            Research Institute in Ispra, contests the decision of the
the Council, it did not make use of them and thereby                Promotions Committee not to include his name on the list
adversely affected not only the general interests of the            of officials most eligible to be promoted to Grade B 3 in
Community but also the specific interest of Camar in its            the 1996 budgetary year.
capacity as a traditional importer of Somali bananas into
the Community.
                                                                    The applicant places specific emphasis in this regard on
                                                                    the delay in compiling his staff report for the period July
Camar takes the view that, although failing to increase the         1993 to June 1995, which was not forwarded to him until
tariff quota for non-member countries to take account of            25 February 1997. That delay deprived him of the
the deficit attributable to Somali bananas, as provided for         opportunity to be included on the abovementioned list of
under Article 16 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , and        officials eligible for promotion. The absence of that
allocating to Camar the portion of that increase to which           periodic staff report prevented the appointing authority
it was entitled, the Commission ought at least to have              from taking full cognizance of his qualities and work
taken the necessary measures pursuant to Article 30 of              capacity. That fact had a decisive bearing, in negative and
that regulation to adjust its reference quantities in order to      preclusive terms, on the promotions procedure .
allow Camar to obtain larger licences for importing
bananas from non-member countries as a Category B
operator. The applicant interprets this omission as                 The applicant points out that during his first 16 years in
constituting a breach of the principle of non                      Grade B 4, which he has occupied for some 21 years, his
discrimination .                                                    work was distinguished by professionalism and
                                                                    conscientiousness, as is moreover confirmed by the staff
                                                                    reports concerning those periods. It is for that reason
(') Case T-79/96 Camar v. Commission ( OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 ,   difficult to believe that for some 16 years of work all the
     p. 13 ).                                                       officials eligible for promotion in the same way as the
                                                                    applicant have always proved to be more meritorious on a
                                                                    comparative examination of their merits and staff reports.
                                                                    In support of his submissions, the applicant puts forward
                                                                    the following grounds :
Action brought on 6 June 1997 by Augusto Fichtner
    against the Commission of the European Communities              — abuse of power based on discrimination,
                       ( Case T-l 73/97)
                         ( 97/C 271/28 )                            — breach and misapplication of Article 24 of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations,
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    — breach of substantive forms,
An action against the Commission of the European                    — breach of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and its
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       implementing provisions.
Instance of the European Communities on 6 June 1997 by
Augusto Fichtner, represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of
the Pavia Bar, 6 Via Orrigoni, Varese ( Italy ).


title: Case T-479/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2014  — Marchiani v Parliament (Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of undue payments)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2014 — Marchiani v Parliament
   (Case T-479/13) (1)

   ((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments))
   2014/C 421/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (Toulon, France) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and C. Karamarcos, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of (i) the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 4 July 2013 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 1 07  694,72 and of (ii) the related debit note of 5 July 2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jean-Charles Marchiani to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case C-212/16: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — DUK Versorgungswerk e. V., Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH, in the presence of: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/12

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — DUK Versorgungswerk e. V., Gothaer Pensionskasse AG v BG Klinik für Berufskrankheiten Bad Reichenhall gGmbH, in the presence of: Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes und der Länder, VBG Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft
   (Case C-212/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/19)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A. v Commission of the European Communities (Commission Regulation No 2519/97 — Food aid — Arbitration clause — Contractual nature of the dispute — Non-conformity of the goods delivered — Thefts from warehouses — Transfer of the burden of risk — Deductions from payments)

text:
5.1.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/25
Brussels, represented by R. Garcı́a-Gallardo and G. Pérez Olmo,           1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                     EUR 109 921, together with post-maturity interest calculated
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                      in accordance with Article 18(7) of Commission Regulation
and J. Rivas Andrés) — application for annulment of the                         (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general
decision of the Commission of 26 February 1999 withdrawing                      rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under
the applicant’s expatriation allowance and withholding from                     Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid,
her remuneration the amounts paid to her in that respect —                      as from 6 May 1999 until the debt is paid in full;
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,                2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 20 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                          (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 26 February 1999;
2.    dismisses as inadmissible the claim that the Court make
      an appropriate order requiring the Commission to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 233 EC;
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those of            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the applicant.
                                                                                of 19 September 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          in Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation
                                                                          in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Tablet for washing machines or
                                                                          dishwashers — Figurative mark — Absolute ground for
                                                                             refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 3/42)
                      of 19 September 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A. v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-30/00: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
(Commission Regulation No 2519/97 — Food aid — Arbi-                      (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
tration clause — Contractual nature of the dispute — Non-                 lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
conformity of the goods delivered — Thefts from warehouses                Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
— Transfer of the burden of risk — Deductions from                        and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
                              payments)                                   nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                                                                          decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2002/C 3/41)                                  Designs) of 25 November 1999 (Case R 75/1999-3), which
                                                                          was notified to the applicant on 10 December 1999 — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                    (Language of the case: French)                        A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                          D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
In Case T-26/00: Lecureur S.A., established in Paris (France),            1.    Dismisses the action;
represented by L. Funck-Brentano and J. Villette, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: P. Oliver) — application                 2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
for an order for payment of sums withheld by the Commission
when paying the balance for a supply of food aid — the Court
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-300/12: Action brought on 9 July 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — A Colmeia do Minho (FAIRGLOBE)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/16

         Action brought on 9 July 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — A Colmeia do Minho (FAIRGLOBE)
   (Case T-300/12)
   2012/C 273/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A Colmeia do Minho Lda (Aldeia de Paio Pires, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 April 2012 in case R 1981/2010-2 insofar as the opposition was upheld;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘FAIRGLOBE’, for goods and services in classes 18, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 6896261

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 221497 of the figurative mark ‘GLOBO PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 30; Portuguese trade mark registration No 221498 of the figurative mark ‘GLOBO PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 29; Portuguese trade mark registration No 311549 of the word mark ‘GLOBO’, for goods in class 29; Portuguese trade mark registration No 337398 of the word mark ‘GLOBO’, for goods in classes 2, 29 and 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal and partially dismissed it

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

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