title: Case T-184/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/23

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)
   (Case T-184/16)
   (2016/C 232/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NRJ Group (Boileau, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SKY ENERGY’ – Application for registration No 9 727 322

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3137/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Confirm the contested decision insofar as it allows the opposition in respect of the following goods and services:
               Class 9: Recorded radio programmes; recorded programmes for broadcasting or other transmission on radio;
               Class 38: Radio broadcasting; transmission and communication services, broadcasting and/or transmission of radio programmes; satellite; DTT, cable, DSL and broadband broadcasting and/or transmission of audio programming; transmission of audio, programming (by any means); provision of access to news, current affairs and sports information; telecommunication of information (including web pages); telecommunication and/or communication and/or broadcast and/or transmission of radio programmes;
               Class 41: Entertainment services by means of radio, presentation and distribution of radio programmes, provision of news, current affairs and sports information, news, current affairs and educational information services; distribution of radio programmes, provision of radio prorammes;

               —

               annul the contested decision in all its other provisions;

               —

               allow the opposition and reject the contested EU mark application for all the goods and services;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-606/13: Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/22

         Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang)
   (Case T-606/13)
   2014/C 39/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dubek Ltd (Petach Tikva, Israel)

      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 13 September 2013 in Case R 416/2012-4 concerning the opposition proceedings against Community trade mark application No 6 065 098;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dubek Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang’ for goods in Class 34 — Community trade mark application No 6 065 098

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and figurative mark ‘MUSTANG’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


2 . 3 . 96           1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 64/25
which the Court of First Instance held that amending                        Removal from the register of Case T-84/95 ( )
Regulations which, after 3 October 1990, fixed a weighting                                       ( 96/C 64/49 )
for Germany by reference to the cost of living in Bonn were
unlawful; the Commission applied Regulation ( ECSC, EC,                             (Language of the case: French)
Euratom ) No 3161 /94, thereby remedying the illegality
which had been established only as from 1 July 1994 .                 By order of 12 January 1996 the President of the First
The applicants also allege an infringement of the principle of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
equal treatment, since, as from 1 October 1990, they did not
enjoy a purchasing power equivalent to that of other                  T-84/95 : Rene Bebin v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
officials who did not transfer part of their remuneration to
Germany.                                                              0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Finally, the Commission failed to ensure that the weighting
for Germany was fixed, in accordance with the Staff
Regulations, at the level of the capital, Berlin, thereby
infringing its duty to have due regard for the interests of
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-138/95 ( ] )
officials. Nor did it bring any action for the annulment of the
Regulation in question, even though it was clearly unlawful;                                     ( 96/C 64/50 )
it thereby failed in its task of ensuring the observance of
Community law, a task which also falls within the duty to                          (Language of the case: German)
have due regard for the interests of officials, when the
persons towards whom the unlawful provision and                       By order of 16 January 1996 the President of the First
secondary legislation is directed are officials and other             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
servants .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-138/95 : Friedrich Engelking v. Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-276/94 (')
                            ( 96/C 64/48 )
               (Language of the case: French)                               Removal from the register of Case T-2 13/95 R
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/51 )
By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      By order of 24 January 1996 the President of the First
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( J ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-213/95 R: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case T-364/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark nollie — Earlier national and international word marks NOLI — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — 2nine v OHIM — Pacific Sunwear of California (nollie)
   (Case T-364/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark nollie - Earlier national and international word marks NOLI - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 134/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 2nine Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Palmer, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (Anaheim, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2008 (Case R 1591/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between 2nine Ltd and Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders 2nine Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-371/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Isaac International Limited (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Customs Code — Article 212a — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Article 292 — Regulation (EEC) No 88/97 — Article 14 — Anti-dumping duty — Bicycle frames)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Isaac International Limited
   (Case C-371/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Customs Code - Article 212a - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 292 - Regulation (EEC) No 88/97 - Article 14 - Anti-dumping duty - Bicycle frames)
   2010/C 246/19
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Isaac International Limited

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation No 88/97 of 20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) 2474/93 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 17) — Interpretation of Article 292(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 212(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 (OJ 1992 L 302, p.1) — Anti-dumping duty on bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China — Conditions for the exemption of certain imports of essential bicycle parts — Obtaining an end-use authorisation — Importer not having obtained the necessary authorisation because he failed to ascertain the terms of Article 14(c) of Regulation (EC) No 88/97 and Article 292(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Meaning of obvious negligence

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The procedure laid down in Article 292(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, cannot be used to authorise an importer established and operating in two Member States, which imports goods into the first Member State and transports them immediately to the second Member State, so as to permit the importer to obtain an exemption from anti-dumping duty under Article 14(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 88/97 of 20 January 1997 on the authorisation of the exemption of imports of certain bicycle parts originating in the People’s Republic of China from the extension by Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of the anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93;

               2.

               Article 212a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 does not permit an exemption from anti-dumping duty to be granted to an importer who does not have the prior authorisation to benefit from the exemption from such duties provided for in Article 14(c) of Regulation No 88/97.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 07.11.2009.


title: Case F-26/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/56

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-26/14)
   2014/C 175/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the applicant in respect of psychological harassment.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 13 February 2013;

               —

               annul the decision of 18 December 2013 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 August 2013;

               —

               grant the applicant damages such as to compensate for the harm suffered of EUR 7 500 in respect of material harm and EUR 50 000 in respect of non-material harm;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-387/05: Action brought on  24 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/4

         Action brought on 24 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-387/05)
   (2006/C 22/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Wilms and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by unilaterally exempting from import customs duties material which may be used for both civilian and military purposes and by refusing to calculate and pay the own resources which were improperly not collected as a result of that exemption and the default interest due by reason of the failure to make those own resources available to the Commission in good time, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26 EC, Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) and, consequently, the Common Customs Tariff, Articles 2, 9, 10 and 17(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (2) and the corresponding provisions of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000; (3)

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Suspension of import customs duties (or, in specific cases, zero-rating) in respect of certain weapons and military equipment was decided on within a Community context by Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 (4) and was to take effect from 1 January 2003.
   In the view of the Commission, the unilateral exemption granted by Italy during the period preceding the application of that regulation amounted to an unlawful derogation from Article 26 EC and from Community customs legislation, resulting in an unjustifiable reduction in customs revenue, which constitutes the Community's own resources.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 155 of 07.06.1989, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2000 L 130 of 31.05.2000, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2003 L 25 of 30.01.2003, p. 1.


title: Case T-247/11: Action brought on 13 May 2011 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/18

         Action brought on 13 May 2011 — FairWild Foundation v OHIM — Wild (FAIRWILD)
   (Case T-247/11)
   2011/C 238/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: FairWild Foundation (Weinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Neuwald and S. Müller, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 March 2011 in the appeal proceedings in Case R 1014/2010-1;

               —

               reject the opposition to registration of international mark No 950 962‘FAIRWILD’;

               —

               order the defendant and the opponent to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, including the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: FairWild Foundation.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘FAIRWILD’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 29 and 30 — international registration No 950 962.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘WILD’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 29, 30 and 32.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously assumed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. The applicant complains that the Board of Appeal (i) wrongly assumed that the meaning of the sign ‘WILD’ is familiar only to the German and English-speaking public, and (ii) proceeded on the assumption that the term is not descriptive of the goods covered by the mark cited in opposition. On that basis, the Board of Appeal erred in law in ascribing average distinctiveness to the mark cited in opposition and in finding an average degree of similarity between the signs, as a result of which the assessment of the interrelated aspects of the likelihood of confusion had an unfavourable outcome as far as the applicant was concerned.


title: Case F-2/12: Action brought on 9 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission and EMA

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/21

         Action brought on 9 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission and EMA
   (Case F-2/12)
   2012/C 184/45
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for (i) the annulment of the Commission’s decisions concerning the drawing up and approval of the shortlist submitted to the EMA’s Management Board in the context of the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Executive Director of that agency, (ii) the annulment of the appointment of another candidate to that post and (iii) compensation for the non-material damage allegedly sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the pre-selection panel adopting a shortlist of candidates for submission to the European Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments, notified to the applicant by email of 14 March 2011;

               —

               annul the prior decision of the European Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments of 14 March 2011 calling the four candidates on the pre-selection panel’s shortlist to an interview with that committee, notified to the applicant by email of 14 March 2011;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments of 14 March 2011 agreeing with the opinion of the pre-selection panel that the four candidates on the latter’s shortlist had greater merits, notified to the applicant by email of 14 March 2011;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011 adopting a shortlist of candidates;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 October 2011 rejecting the administrative complaint submitted under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and setting out the grounds of the European Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011 adopting a shortlist of candidates;

               —

               annul the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 91(4) of Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, that decision having been the subject of a complaint submitted to the appointing authority pursuant to Article 90 of those Staff Regulations;

               —

               order appropriate compensation for the non-material damage sustained;

               —

               order the Commission and the EMA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-102/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV, Vendex KBB Nederland BV (Trade marks — Articles 5(1)(b), 5(2) and 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC — Requirement of availability — Three-stripe figurative marks — Two-stripe motifs used by competitors as decoration — Complaint alleging infringement and dilution of the mark)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV, Vendex KBB Nederland BV
   (Case C-102/07) (1)

   (Trade marks - Articles 5(1)(b), 5(2) and 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Requirement of availability - Three-stripe figurative marks - Two-stripe motifs used by competitors as decoration - Complaint alleging infringement and dilution of the mark)
   (2008/C 128/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: adidas AG, adidas Benelux BV

      Defendants: Marca Mode CV, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV, Vendex KBB Nederland BV
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Non-registration or invalidity — Lack of distinctive character — Acquisition through usage — General interest in not restricting unduly the availability of signs perceived by the relevant public as signs serving to embellish a product and not to distinguish it
   Operative part of the judgment
   First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of availability cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of a trade mark, except in so far as the limitation of the effects of the trade mark defined in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive applies.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-438/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Forgital Italy v Council

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/43

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Forgital Italy v Council
   (Case T-438/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/77
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Forgital Italy SpA (Velo d'Astico, Italy) (represented by: V. Turinetti di Priero and R. Mastroianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products, with particular reference to point (1) of Article 1 thereof, and Annex I to that Regulation in so far as it amends the description for CN Code 8108 20 00;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present case is a company, with its seat in Italy, which is specialised in metalworking. It contests Regulation No 566/2010, which amended the applicable legislation temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties, in so far as one of the amendments introduced applies to the product designated by CN Code 8108 20 00, TARIC 20, the description of which was replaced with the following: ‘Raw ingots from the fusion of titanium and titanium alloys, of a diameter of not more than 380 mm’.
   As a result of that amendment, ingots of a diameter greater than 380 mm — which had until then been exempt from duty under the previous legislation — were made liable, with effect from 1 July 2010, for payment of the Common Customs Tariff. On the other hand, ingots of a diameter of 380 mm or less will continue to be exempt from the duty until 31 December 2013.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law:

               1.

               Failure to state reasons for the decision, or failure to state adequate reasons. On this point, it is argued that inadequate reasons are given in the contested Regulation for the amendment to the description of the product designated by CN Code 8108 20 00, TARIC 20: it is merely stated that the amendment is necessary ‘in order to take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market’. Despite the requirements under the case-law, that statement does not enable the applicant to know the reasons for the measure so as to be able to defend its own rights; nor does it enable the EU Courts to exercise their powers of review.

               2.

               Breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of the applicant’s legitimate expectations. According to the applicant, in so far as the contested Regulation concerns the description of the product in question, it fails to comply with the principle of legal certainty, in that the amendments made were not predictable on the basis of previous practice or the information given in the Commission Communication concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (OJ 1998 C 128, p. 2). That entails also breach of the principle of the protection of the legitimate expectations entertained by the applicant, which had in good faith placed its trust in (i) the previous description and period of validity of the tariff suspension relating to the products in question, as provided under the legislation in force before the amendment and (ii) the criteria identifiable in previous practice and set out in the above Communication as the basis for any amendment of the description or for the premature cancellation of that tariff suspension.

               3.

               Breach of the principle of equal treatment. According to the applicant, the contested Regulation introduces, without putting forward any plausible justification, a difference in treatment as between the importers of raw ingots from the fusion of titanium and titanium alloys, of a diameter of not more than 380 mm (for whom the tariff is suspended) and importers of titanium ingots of a greater diameter.

               4.

               Breach of the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains on this point that, so far as the product in question is concerned, the contested Regulation is disproportionate in relation to the purported need to ‘take account of technical product developments and economic trends on the market’, in that (i) there have been no economic or technical developments in the titanium alloy ingots sector which were so significant as to make it necessary for the import rules to undergo the amendment introduced by the contested Regulation and (ii) the drastic and unexpected nature of those amendments — which were not accompanied by a transitional period — is inconsistent with the aims pursued by that Regulation.


title: Case C-245/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria)) — K v Bundesasylamt (Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Humanitarian clause — Article 15 of that regulation — Person who enjoys asylum in a Member State and is dependent on the assistance of an asylum seeker because she suffers from a serious illness — Article 15(2) of the regulation — Obligation on that Member State, which is not responsible according to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine the application for asylum made by that asylum seeker — Conditions)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/15

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Asylgerichtshof (Austria)) — K v Bundesasylamt
   (Case C-245/11) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Humanitarian clause - Article 15 of that regulation - Person who enjoys asylum in a Member State and is dependent on the assistance of an asylum seeker because she suffers from a serious illness - Article 15(2) of the regulation - Obligation on that Member State, which is not responsible according to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation, to examine the application for asylum made by that asylum seeker - Conditions)
   2013/C 9/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Asylgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K

      Defendant: Bundesasylamt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Asylgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(2) and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Responsibility of a Member State to examine, for humanitarian reasons, an application for asylum made to it, even if it is not responsible for that examination in accordance with the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Close relationship between the asylum-seeker and a person who is very vulnerable and who already enjoys the right to asylum in that Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which is not responsible for examining an application for asylum pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that regulation becomes so responsible. It is for the Member State which has become the responsible Member State within the meaning of that regulation to assume the obligations which go along with that responsibility. It must inform in that respect the Member State previously responsible. This interpretation of Article 15(2) also applies where the Member State which was responsible pursuant to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of Regulation No 343/2003 did not make a request in that regard in accordance with the second sentence of Article 15(1) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case C-296/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health — Dismissal of the application to include certain claims despite the positive advice of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA))

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 — Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-296/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health - Dismissal of the application to include certain claims despite the positive advice of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)))
   (2017/C 249/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S Grünheid and K. Herbout-Borczak, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case C-612/12 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2012 by Ballast Nedam NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/10

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2012 by Ballast Nedam NV against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber) on 27 September 2012 in Case T-361/06 Ballast Nedam v Commission
   (Case C-612/12 P)
   2013/C 71/16
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Ballast Nedam NV (represented by: A.R. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               Set aside in full or in part the decision of the General Court as set out in the operative part of the judgment under appeal.

               —

               in the event that the appeal is allowed:

                           —

                           uphold in full or in part the form of order sought by Ballast Nedam at first instance;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Ballast Nedam puts forward two pleas in support of its appeal.
   By its
         first plea
      , Ballast Nedam submits that the General Court infringed Article 27(1) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the rights of the defence by failing to annul (in part) the Commission’s decision (2) in so far as that decision was directed at Ballast Nedam. The General Court failed to take account of the fact that, in the present case, the statement of objections of 18 October 2004 did not satisfy the relevant requirements of EU law.
   In support of that submission, Ballast Nedam claims in the first place that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court on the one hand recognised that the statement of objections was unclear on an essential point but did not on the other hand conclude from this that the rights of the defence had not been guaranteed by the Commission.
   In the second place, Ballast Nedam directs a complaint against the General Court’s assessment that, in the statement of objections, the Commission adduced sufficient material to make it possible to ascertain which facts and circumstances it used in support of its finding of an infringement and stated unequivocally which legal persons could except to be fined. In so far as that assessment concerns Ballast Nedam, it is based on a misinterpretation of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the requirements that the content of a statement of objections must satisfy. It is relevant in this respect that the subsidiary which committed the infringement imputed to Ballast Nedam is not identified in the statement of objections.
   In the third place, Ballast Nedam challenges the General Court’s assessment that on the basis of the statement of objections it could not have been unaware that, as parent company of Ballast Nedam Grond en Wegen B.V. (‘BN Grond en Wegen’), it would be the addressee of the final Commission decision. In so doing, the General Court inter alia misconstrued the scope of the case-law of the Court of Justice which provides that a statement of objections must indicate in what capacity the allegations are being made against the undertaking.
   In the fourth place, in assessing whether the Commission had respected the rights of the defence, the General Court wrongly took account of an alleged reaction by Ballast Nedam to the content of the statement of objections.
   By its
         second plea
      , Ballast Nedam claims that the General Court infringed EU law by misapplying fundamental principles applicable in the context of imputing cartel infringements to parent companies. In the submission of Ballast Nedam, the General Court erred in law in finding that the Commission was entitled to hold Ballast Nedam liable for an infringement of Article 81 EC, even though that infringement has not been established by the Commission.
   In support of its second plea, Ballast Nedam refers in the first place to the fact that in the judgment of 24 March 2011 in Case T-382/06 Tomkins v Commission (2011) ECR II-1157) it was held that the liability of a parent company cannot exceed that of the subsidiary to which the infringement is imputed. This means that an infringement cannot be imputed to a parent company if and in so far as it has not been established by the Commission.
   In that connection, Ballast Nedam submits that the Commission’s margin of assessment in deciding which entities within an undertaking are to be held liable for an infringement is not so extensive that a parent company can be held liable for an infringement which has not been established.
   In the second place, Ballast Nedam takes issue with the fact that the General Court took into account that Ballast Nedam did not rebut the presumption that it exercised decisive influence over BN Grond en Wegen’s conduct on the market. That circumstance is closely linked to the infringement of the rights of the defence and is moreover irrelevant from a legal point of view.

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

      (2)  Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)).


title: Case T-279/10: Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — K-Mail Order v OHIM — IVKO (MEN’Z) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark MEN’Z — Prior trade name WENZ — Relative ground for refusal — Local range of the earlier sign — Article 8(4) and Article 41(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — K-Mail Order v OHIM — IVKO (MEN’Z)
   (Case T-279/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MEN’Z - Prior trade name WENZ - Relative ground for refusal - Local range of the earlier sign - Article 8(4) and Article 41(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 311/82
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: K-Mail Order GmbH & Co. KG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher and G. Stallecker, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH (Baar-Wanderath, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2010 (Case R 746/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wenz GmbH and IVKO Industrieprodukt-Vertriebskontakt GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders K-Mail Order GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-146/09: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Prof. Dr. Claus Scholl v Stadtwerke Aachen AG

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/15

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Prof. Dr. Claus Scholl v Stadtwerke Aachen AG
   (Case C-146/09) (1)

   2010/C 195/23

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-121/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility — Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State — Approval of that State — Extension of a rail freight corridor — Legal basis — Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-121/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility - Projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a Member State - Approval of that State - Extension of a rail freight corridor - Legal basis - Article 171 TFEU and second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU))
   (2016/C 016/07)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt and L. Christie, acting as Agents, and by D.J. Rhee, Barrister)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: Z. Kupčová and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnadda and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-98/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 11 February 2005 in De Danske Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 11 February 2005 in De Danske Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-98/05)
   (2005/C 106/34)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Denmark) of 11 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between De Danske Bilimportører and Skatteministeriet on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 11(A)(2)(a) in conjunction with Article 11(A)(3)(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a registration duty for motor vehicles (cars) must be included in the taxable amount for VAT, where a purchase agreement is entered into for the supply of a new motor vehicle for use for carrying passengers, where the motor vehicle is supplied, in accordance with the purchase agreement and the purchaser's intended use, by the dealer to the consumer in the registered state and for an overall price which includes both the price paid to the dealer and also the duty?

               2.

               May a Member State arrange its tax system in such a way that the registration duty is regarded as an expense which the dealer pays on behalf of the final purchaser, so that it is the final purchaser who is immediately liable to pay the duty?

               3.

               Is it of significance with respect to Questions 1 and 2 that a car may be purchased and supplied without payment of registration duty, which will be possible if the purchaser does not intend to use the car for ordinary carriage of passengers or goods within the area in which the Traffic Law applies?

               4.

               Is it of significance that used motor vehicles are to a not insubstantial extent imported or brought inter alia as goods in connection with a transfer of residence by the final consumer, who pays the registration duty himself without the intervention of a dealer?

               5.

               Is it of significance that the liability to registration duty arises or falls due — possibly as an expense — before the liability to VAT arises or falls due?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 239, 25.9.2004

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/29

         (2004/C 251/52)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

      OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

      OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

      OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

      OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

      OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

      OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-146/97)

text:
No C 199/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         28 . 6 . 97
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff must                    Tributaria Provinciale di Milano — Sezione XII — by
be interpreted as meaning that Echinacea purpurea                     order of that court of 24 March 1997 in the case of AGAS
extract-based drops must be classified under heading                  (Abbruzzi       Gas    Agas )      SpA   against Amministrazione
3004 .                                                                                Tributaria
                                                                                ( Case C-152/97 )
(') OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .                                                                     ( 97/C 199/ 19 )
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Commissione
                                                                      Tributaria Provinciale di Milano ( Provincial Tax Court,
                                                                      Milan ) — Sezione XII (Twelfth Chamber ) — of 24 March
Action brought on 16 April 1997 by the Commission of                  1997, received at the Court Registry on 21 April 1997, for
  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic              a preliminary ruling in the case of AGAS ( Abbruzzi Gas
                          Case C-146/97                               Agas ) SpA against Amministrazione Tributaria on the
                                                                      following question :
                          ( 97/C 199/ 18 )
                                                                      Do the provisions on the harmonization of indirect taxes
                                                                      on contributions of capital to capital companies ( ! ) in the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                   Union also include merger by acquisition of one company
before the Court of Justice on 16 April 1997 by the                   by another company which already owns 100% of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                   capital of the former ?
by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos             (') Article 4 of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 ( OJ No
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                          L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p. 5 ), amended by Directives 73/80/EEC
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        of 9 April 1973 ( OJ No L 103 , 18 . 4 . 1973 , p. 15 ) and 85/
                                                                          303/EEC of 10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 15 . 6 . 1985 , p. 23 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission                   Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen by order of that court
     Directive 93/70/EEC of 28 July 1993 establishing                 of 16 April 1997 in the application for review of
     Community analysis methods for official control of               legislative provisions brought by Georg Badeck and
     feedingstuffs ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to           other members and former members of the Hessischer
     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that              Landtag, interveners: Hessischer Ministerprasident and
     Directive ,                                                        Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen
                                                                                Case C-158/97 )
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                                                    ( 97/C 199/20 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the
                                                                      Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen ( State Constitutional
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty                Court, Hessen ) of 16 April 1997, which was received at
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be             the Court Registry on 24 April 1997, for a preliminary
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                   ruling in the application for review of legislative
Member State to which it is addressed . Under the first               provisions brought by Georg Badeck and other
paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States               members        and    former        members    of  the   Hessischer
are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or              Landtag, interveners : Hessischer Ministerprasident and
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising           Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen,
out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the               on the following question :
institutions of the Community. The Hellenic Republic has
not yet taken the appropriate measures to transpose the               Does Article 2 ( 1 ) and (4 ) of Council Directive 76/207/
Directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.              EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
                                                                      principle of equal treatment for men and women as
 (*) OJ Nd L 234, 17. 9 . 1993 , p . 17 .                             regards access to employment, vocational training and
                                                                      promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 .
                                                                       1976, p. 40, hereinafter 'the Equal Treatment Directive')
                                                                      preclude national rules under which :


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 22 January 2002 in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l'Ordre des Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and 43 EC — National legislation restricting access to the profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or professional qualification — Community national holding a diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation on the host Member State when presented with an application to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the qualifications required by its national legislation)

text:
6.4.2002                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/19
Kauer and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, on                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the interpretation of Article 94(1), (2) and (3) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                                        (Fifth Chamber)
self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                            22 January 2002
S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate                   in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-             the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l’Ordre des
trator, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it                              Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (1)
has ruled:
                                                                           (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and
                                                                           43 EC — National legislation restricting access to the
                                                                           profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or
Article 94(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June            professional qualification — Community national holding a
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed             diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families         on the host Member State when presented with an application
moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated            to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make
by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read              a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities
in conjunction, depending on the case, with Articles 8a, 48 and 52         certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and                 qualifications required by its national legislation)
43 EC), is to be interpreted as precluding application of a Member
State’s legislation under which child-raising periods completed in
another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic
                                                                                (2002/C 84/30)
Area of 2 May 1992 or in another Member State of the European
Union are not treated as substitute periods for the purposes of old-
age insurance unless
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     they were completed after the entry into force of that regulation    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      in the first State, and                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
—     the applicant receives, or received, for the children concerned,
      cash maternity allowances or equivalent allowances under the         In Case C-31/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      legislation of that same State,                                      by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between Conseil
                                                                           National de l’Ordre des Architectes and Nicolas Dreessen on
                                                                           the interpretation of Articles 10 EC and 43 EC, the Court (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
when such periods completed in national territory are treated as           S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and
substitute periods for the purposes of old-age insurance without any       C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
limitation in time or any other condition.                                 Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 22 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where a
                                                                           Community national applies to the competent authorities of a
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.                                                  Member State for authorisation to practise a profession, access to
                                                                           which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a
                                                                           diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical
                                                                           experience, those authorities are required to take into consideration
                                                                           all of the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                           qualifications of the person concerned, and his relevant experience, by
                                                                           comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and
                                                                           that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/20                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
the national legislation, even where a directive on the mutual              1.    Declares that, by not drawing up waste management plans
recognition of diplomas has been adopted for the profession concerned,            covering the whole of its territory and complying with all the
but where application of that directive does not result in automatic              provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
recognition of the applicant’s qualification or qualifications.                   on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                                18 March 1991, of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
                                                                                12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and of Directive
                                                                                94/62/EC of the European Parliament and Council of
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, and/or
                                                                                by not informing the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
                                                                                by Directive 91/156, Article 6 of Directive 91/689 and,
                                                                                leaving aside Gibraltar, under Article 14 of Directive 94/62.
                                                                            2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Ireland to pay the costs.
                         (Second Chamber)                                   (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                          24 January 2002
in Case C-35/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                              Ireland (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC,
  91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
                           (2002/C 84/31)                                                             15 January 2002
                    (Language of the case: English)                         in Case C-43/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Vestre Landsret): Andersen og Jensen ApS v
                                                                                Skatteministeriet (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Com-
                                                                            mon system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions,
                                                                            transfers of assets and exchanges of shares — Transfer of
In Case C-35/00, Commission of the European Communities                               assets or of a branch of activity — Meaning)
(agents: R. B. Wainwright and L. Ström) v United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent: R. Magrill, assisted
                                                                                (2002/C 84/32)
by D. Wyatt, QC): Application for a declaration that, by not
drawing up waste management plans complying with all the
provisions concerning waste of Council Directive 75/442/EEC                                     (Language of the case: Danish)
of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended
by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32), of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and of                                         in the European Court Reports)
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10), and/or by not informing the Commission
thereof, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                   In Case C-43/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of             by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in
Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Article 6                 the proceedings pending before that court between Andersen
of Directive 91/689 and Article 14 of Directive 94/62, the                  og Jensen ApS and Skatteministeriet on the interpretation of
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President                 Article 2(c) and (i) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                   1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to
Judges, Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass, has              mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it:                           concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990


title: Case T-30/03 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — 3F v Commission (State aid — Fiscal aid granted by the Danish authorities — Seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register — Commission decision not to raise objections — Action for annulment — Serious difficulties)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 — 3F v Commission
   (Case T-30/03 RENV) (1)

   (State aid - Fiscal aid granted by the Danish authorities - Seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Serious difficulties)
   2011/C 331/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: P. Bentley QC and A. Worsøe, lawyer, and subsequently by Mr. Bentley and P. Torbøl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Intervening party on behalf of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Vang, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 not to raise objections to the Danish fiscal measures applicable to seafarers employed on board vessels registered in the Danish International Register.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders 3F, formerly Specialarbejderforbundet i Danmark (SID), to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission before the Court of Justice and the General Court;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.


title: Case C-410/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-410/09)
   2010/C 24/33
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Question referred

   Does Article 58 of the Act of Accession (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) allow reliance to be placed against individuals in a Member State upon European Commission guidelines (OJ 2002 C 165, p. 6) of which, under Article 16(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), the national regulatory authority should take the utmost account when carrying out an analysis of the relevant markets, where those guidelines have not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of that State and that language is an official language of the European Union?


title: Case C-254/01: Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Republic of Finland

text:
1.9.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 245/11
security of the coast and of its inhabitants, is designed to               Pleas in law and main arguments
acquire an appropriate insight into the dynamics of the coastal
area. The contract thus comes under the categories indicated
by CPC Reference No 86753 (‘surface surveying services’) and
No 86754 (‘map making services’), and thus under the services              The third paragraph of Article 249 EC states that a directive is
indicated in Category No 12 in Annex I A to the directive:                 binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member State
‘architectural services; engineering services and integrated               to which it is addressed.
engineering services; urban planning and landscape architec-
tural services; related scientific and technical consulting services ...’
Pursuant to Article 8 of the directive, contracts having as their          The first paragraph of Article 10 EC states that Member States
object services listed in Annex I A are to be awarded in                   are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
accordance with the provisions of Titles III to VI (which                  specific, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of
include the placing of an indicative notice and a notice in the            the Treaty or resulting from actions taken by the institutions
Official Journal and the following of an open or restricted                of the Community.
procedure).
                                                                           This obligation deriving directly from the Treaty is repeated
Finally, the Commission is unable to accept the invocation of              expressly in Article 23 of Directive 96/48/EC, according to
Article 11(3(b) of the directive, in particular the technical
                                                                           which the Member States are to amend and adopt their laws,
reasons referred to therein. It is extremely unlikely that there           regulations and administrative provisions so as to authorise
would, in other Member States with a seacoast, not be any                  the use of constituents of interoperability of the trans-
undertakings in a technical and financial position to perform
                                                                           European high-speed rail system and the putting into service
the contract.                                                              and operation of subsystems which comply with the directive,
                                                                           no later than 30 months after entry into force of the directive.
                                                                           They are to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. In this
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.                                                   connection, it should be emphasised that even in the absence
                                                                           of the technical specifications for interoperability under Chap-
                                                                           ter II of the directive, Chapters III and IV of the directive are
                                                                           fully in force and applicable.
                                                                           Finland refers to the decision of the Ministry of Transport of
                                                                           3 March 1999, in which the ministry decided to designate
                                                                           Ratahallintokeskus (Rail Administration Centre) as the control
Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the                         body under Article 20 of Directive 96/48/EC on the interop-
    European Communities against Republic of Finland                       erability of the trans-European high-speed rail system. The
                                                                           Ministry of Transport also invited the Ratahallintokeskus to
                                                                           take account when making technical decisions of the technical
                          (Case C-254/01)                                  specifications of interoperability adopted on the basis of the
                                                                           above directive.
                         (2001/C 245/20)
                                                                           Apart from that decision, Finland has not notified any other
                                                                           legislative or administrative measures on the basis of which
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before               the Commission could find that Finnish legislation together
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July                 with the administrative measures in force authorise the use of
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        constituents of interoperability of the trans-European high-
represented by M. Huttunen and M. Wolfcarius, with an                      speed rail system and the putting into service and operation of
address for service in Luxembourg.                                         subsystems which comply with the directive. Finland has
                                                                           notified only that it is preparing an overall recasting of railway
                                                                           legislation and that the aim is to include in the amendments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                adequate provisions for implementation of the directive on
                                                                           high-speed rail systems.
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to adopt
      the laws, regulations or administrative provisions required
      to comply with Directive 96/48/EC (1) and has thus failed            (1) Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperabi-
      to fulfil its obligations under the directive, other than                lity of the trans-European high-speed rail system (OJ L 235 of
      the obligation to notify the responsible body under                      17.9.1996, p. 6).
      Article 20(1);
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.


title: Case T-251/00: Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Lagardère SCA, Canal+S.A. and Liberty Media Corporation against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/46               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Società Coope-                      SCA, Canal+S.A., whose registered office is in Paris, and Liberty
rativa Veneziana Motoscafi a r.l. and Others against                       Media Corporation, whose registered office is in Englewood,
         Commission of the European Communities                            Colorado, (United States of America), represented by Antoine
                                                                           Winckler and Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                           Pierre-Manuel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Suyon Kim and
             (Joined Cases T-247/00 and T-250/00)
                                                                           Samuel Szlezinger, of the Bar of England and Wales.
                         (2000/C 335/87)
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        —     annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                                Commission’s decision of 10 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by Società
Cooperativa Veneziana Motoscafi a r.l. and Others, represented
by Giorgio Orsoni and Andrea Pavanini, of the Venice Bar.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicants contest the decision of the Commission of
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;                              10 July 2000 taken in the context of a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                           Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/JV 40
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Canal+/Lagardère et COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/Liberty
                                                                           Media) and amending the decision of the Commission of
                                                                           22 June 2000 declaring compatible with the common market
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            and with the EEA Agreement the concentration operation
                                                                           intended to create a number of joint ventures between
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in               companies of the Lagardère group, companies of the Canal+
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v                    group and Liberty in the field of thematic channels and
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).                     interactive television services and in the distribution of multi-
                                                                           channel bouquets, inasmuch as the amendment consists in
                                                                           categorising certain restrictive clauses declared to be ancillary
The applicants claim in particular that there has been a                   by the first decision as non-ancillary.
manifest error of assessment of the facts, as well as of
procedure, in so far as the relief from contributions in question
are characterised as aid. The applicants also allege infringement          The applicants argue that the contested decision is vitiated
of Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.                                 by serious breaches of procedure which should entail its
                                                                           annulment, in particular:
(1) not yet published.
                                                                           —     first, the Commission manifestly lacked the power ratione
                                                                                temporis to adopt the decision of 10 July, since it was
                                                                                taken more than two weeks after the expiry of the time-
                                                                                limit of one month as provided for in Article 10(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 4064/89 and the decision of 22 June,
                                                                                which was adopted within the statutory time-limit, had
                                                                                brought the proceeding to a close;
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Lagardère
SCA, Canal+S.A. and Liberty Media Corporation against                      —     secondly, by adopting the decision of 10 July, the Com-
         Commission of the European Communities                                  mission gravely and manifestly infringed the principles of
                                                                                legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations
                                                                                and the observance of acquired rights;
                         (Case T-251/00)
                                                                           —     thirdly, the decision of 10 July is vitiated by a failure to
                         (2000/C 335/88)                                         state reasons;
                                                                           —     fourthly, the decision of 10 July was adopted contrary to
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                the rights of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by Lagardère


title: Case T-37/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Sanpaolo IMI spa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/58                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Sanpaolo IMI spa, represented by Alberto Santa Maria, Claudio
                                                                          Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and Marcello Valenti,
—     order the Commission to pay compensation for the                    lawyers.
      damage, to be quantified or in such sum as the Court
      shall think fit, caused to Alitalia by the first decision and
      the conditions imposed thereby and by the fact of that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      measure having been reproduced by means of the second
      decision;                                                           —     annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December
                                                                                2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                                on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
—     order the Commission to pay interest on the amount
                                                                                requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or
      referred to above for the period up to the date of
                                                                                lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
      payment;
                                                                                Article 253 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
                                                                                Articles 87 and 77 and with Council Regulation
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    No 659/1999, as expounded in the application;
                                                                          —     alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
                                                                                part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
                                                                                Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
                                                                                or (c) of the EC Treaty, as expounded in the application;
By the present action, Alitalia, the same applicant as in Cases
T-296/97 (1) and T-301/01 (2), is seeking an order requiring              —     in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event
the defendant to pay compensation for the damage allegedly                      that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
caused by Commission Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997                         23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
concerning the recapitalisation of the applicant company and                    17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
by the conditions imposed thereby, which it claims to have                      constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible
been reproduced, following the annulment of that first decision                 with the common market, rule that the contested decision
by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July                       of the Commission cannot have any retroactive effect;
2000 in the abovementioned Case T-296/97, by Decision
2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001.                                              —     subject to the reservation of all rights.
The pleas of illegality are the same as those advanced in the
abovementioned cases.                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2000 in        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
    Case T-296/97 Alitalia v Commission [2000] ECR II-3871.               put forward in Case T-36/02 ABI v Commission.
(2) Case T-301/01 Alitalia v Commission (OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002,
    p. 24).
                                                                          Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Intesabci
                                                                          Spa against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 21 February 2002 by Banca Sanpaolo                                                       ties
IMI spa against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities                                                               (Case T-39/02)
                           (Case T-37/02)                                                          (2002/C 109/112)
                         (2002/C 109/111)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Intesabci Spa, represented by Alberto Santa Maria, Claudio
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and Marcello Valenti,
European Communities on 21 February 2002 by Banca                         lawyers.


title: Case C-562/16: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/13

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-562/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/23)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.


title: Case T-163/10: Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/46

      Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)
      (Case T-163/10)
      (2010/C 161/73)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Entegris, Inc. (Billerica, United States) (represented by: T. Ludbrook, Barrister and M. Rosser, Solicitor)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimize Technologies, Inc. (Oregon City, United States)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Uphold the appeal;

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2;

                  —

                  Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES’, for goods in class 9.

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

         Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “OPTIMIZER”, for goods in classes 1, 9 and 11.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the said legal provision in accordance with the relevant case law, thereby wrongly finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-347/13: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2014 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/19

         Order of the General Court of 25 March 2014 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)
   (Case T-347/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 151/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hawe Hydraulik SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: HaWi Energietechnik AG (Eggenfelden, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 April 2013 (Case R 1690/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Hawe Hydraulik SE and HaWi Energietechnik AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs, and to pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.