title: Case C-353/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — Sanofi Aventis Spa v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 31 July 2007 — Sanofi Aventis Spa v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
   (Case C-353/07)
   (2007/C 247/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (AIFA)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sanofi Aventis Spa

      Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco
   Questions referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it permissible to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               May the requirements relating to the indication of criteria which are objective and transparent, and of such a nature that the intervention of the relevant competent authorities (as regards the period up to 31 December 2006) and of the legislature (as from 1 January 2007) is verifiable be taken to be fully satisfied by the indication of the requirements relating to the ceiling for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine and to the containment of that expenditure and, in particular, by data relating to health expenditure overall or, more specifically, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC] and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case T-185/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Air liquide v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Air liquide v Commission
   (Case T-185/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2011/C 226/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Air liquide, société anonyme pour l’étude et l’exploitation des procédés Georges Claude (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Saint-Esteben, M. Pittie and P. Honoré, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns L’Air liquide, SA pour l’étude et l’exploitation des procédés Georges Claude;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-256/13: Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Italy v Commission (Social policy — Community action programmes in the field of youth — Partial reimbursement of the funding paid — Ineligibility of certain sums — Exceeding of the upper limit provided for in respect of a category of actions — Implementation by the national agencies of procedures to recover the sums wrongly used from the final beneficiaries)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Italy v Commission
      (Case T-256/13) (1)

      ((Social policy - Community action programmes in the field of youth - Partial reimbursement of the funding paid - Ineligibility of certain sums - Exceeding of the upper limit provided for in respect of a category of actions - Implementation by the national agencies of procedures to recover the sums wrongly used from the final beneficiaries))
      (2014/C 395/54)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by W. Ferrante, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment, first, of the letter of the Commission Ares (2013) 237719 of 22 February 2013, addressed to the Agenzia nazionale per i giovani (National Youth Agency, Italy), which announces the issue of a debit note in respect of a total amount of EUR 1 486 485.90, in so far as that figure includes an amount of EUR 52 036.24 for expenses borne in respect of training activities relating to the European Voluntary Service and an amount of EUR 183 729,72, in respect of sums not recovered by the Agenzia nazionale per i giovani from the final beneficiaries as regards the period from 2000 to 2004, and, secondly, of the letter of the Commission Ares (2013) 267064 of 28 February 2013, addressed to the Dipartimento della gioventù e del servizio civile nazionale (Department for Youth and the national civil service, Italy), communicating the final evaluation conclusions from the declaration of assurance and the conclusions on the annual report of that agency in respect of 2011.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case F-62/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Parliament

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/49

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-62/15)
   (2015/C 213/79)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions reducing the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who reside in Denmark, as set out in their pension statements for the month of June 2014 and compensation for non-material harm allegedly suffered as a result of the diverging and contradictory information used as grounds for the contested decisions.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions contained in the pension statement of June 2014 by which the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants is reduced as of 1 January 2014;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs and an amount to be fixed on an equitable basis as compensation for the non-material harm caused.


title: Case T-214/04: Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/28

         Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-214/04)
   (2004/C 217/50)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was submitted: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd, Windsor (United Kingdom), represented by J. H. Maitland Walker, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister.
   The Polo/Lauren Company LP was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of March 25, 2004 in case R 273/2002-1 rejecting the applicant's application

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               the applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘ROYAL COUNTY OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB’for goods in class 3 (cleaning preparations etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Polo Lauren Company LP

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National figurative and work marks containing the word ‘POLO’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Decision of the opposition division annulled; registration refused

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1). The applicant argues that the signs in question are dissimilar.


title: Case T-85/15: Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Alfa Wassermann Hungary v OHIM — Pharma Mar (YLOELIS)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/43

         Action brought on 19 February 2015 — Alfa Wassermann Hungary v OHIM — Pharma Mar (YLOELIS)
   (Case T-85/15)
   (2015/C 118/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfa Wassermann Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘YLOELIS’ — Application for registration No 1 0 9 14  431

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 1100/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 February 2014 (opposition proceedings No B 2 0 66  184);

               —

               reject the opposition No B 2 0 66  184 in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM and the opponent to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  24 November 2005  in Case C-506/03: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (Subsidies — Feasibility study — Contract for the assignment of intellectual property rights)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 24 November 2005
   in Case C-506/03: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Subsidies - Feasibility study - Contract for the assignment of intellectual property rights)
   (2006/C 36/12)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-506/03 Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma, assisted by C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Zavvos and C. Schmidt, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 26 November 2003 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, Acting President of the Fourth Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2001 in Case T-144/99 Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Professional code of conduct — Ban on comparative advertising — Supply of services)

text:
C 227/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         11.8.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 April 2001
                          of 24 April 2001
                                                                           in Case T-37/99: Ugo Miranda v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-159/98: Ivan Torre and Others v Commission                       (Officials — Resettlement allowance — Meaning of resi-
               of the European Communities (1)                                                              dence)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/30)
(Officials — Competition — Irregularity in the manner in
which the tests were conducted, such as to distort the results
           — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case T-37/99: Ugo Miranda, an official of the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                          (2001/C 227/29)                                  by L. Radicati di Brozolo, lawyer, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. Dal Ferro) — application for
                                                                           annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 May 1998,
                                                                           relating to the recovery of the resettlement allowance paid to
                    (Language of the case: French)                         the applicant by virtue of Article 6 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                           Regulations — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                           P. Mengozzi); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, gave a judgment on 24 April 2001, in which it:
In Case T-159/98: Ivan Torre, residing in Brussels, Donatella
Ineichen, residing in Brussels, Allessandro Cavallaro, residing            1.    dismisses the application;
in Rome, represented by M.-A. Lucas, avocat, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                    2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for annulment, first, of the decisions of the
selection board in competition EUR/A/123 awarding the                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.99.
applicants a mark eliminating them from the initial pre-
selection test and, second, of the subsequent steps taken in
that competition, in so far as may be necessary in order to
restore the applicants’ rights — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President,
and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
24 April 2001, in which it:
                                                                                of 28 March 2001
1.    Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the
      present action in so far as concerns Mr Torre and Mr Cavallaro;      in Case T-144/99 Institute of Professional Representatives
                                                                           before the European Patent Office v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    Dismisses the action in so far as concerns Ms Ineichen;
                                                                           (Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              Article 81 EC) — Professional code of conduct — Ban on
                                                                                comparative advertising — Supply of services)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/31)
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-144/99, Institute of Professional Representatives
                                                                           before the European Patent Office, established in Munich
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/17
(Germany), represented by R. Collin and M.-C. Mitchell,                   1.    Dismisses the action;
Avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gippini                 2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Fournier) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/267/EC of 7 April 1999 relating to a proceed-
ing pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI
code of conduct) (OJ 1999 L 106, p. 14) — the Court of                    (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 March 2001, in which it:
1.    Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/267/EC of
      7 April 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
      of the EC Treaty (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct) in so far as
      it concerns Article 2(b)(3) and Article 5(c) of the Code of
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Conduct of the Institute of Professional Representatives before
      the European Patent Office;
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those         in Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v
      incurred in the interlocutory procedure.                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Term EASYBANK — Absolute
                                                                          grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/33)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 (Language of the case: German)
                           of 3 May 2001                                  In Case T-87/00 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG, estab-
                                                                          lished in Vienna (Austria), represented by G. Kucsko, Rechtsan-
in Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou v Council of the                       walt, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office
                        European Union (1)                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, J.F. Crespo
                                                                          Carrillo and S. Laitinen) — application for annulment of the
(Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance —                      decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)                Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs) of 31 January 2000 (Case R 316/1999-3), refusing
                          (2001/C 227/32)                                 registration of the term EASYBANK as a Community trade
                                                                          mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                          composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                    (Language of the case: French)                        given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:
In Case T-60/00: Paraskevi Liaskou, an official of the Council            1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by                     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                 Designs) of 31 January 2000 (Case R 316/1999-3);
v Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and
D. Zahariou) — application, first, for annulment of the                   2.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
Council’s decision of 5 July 1999 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and, second, for payment
of that allowance together with default interest — the Court              (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.00.
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 3 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-171/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2008 — Avaya v OHIM — ZyXEL Communications (VANTAGE CNM)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2008 — Avaya v OHIM — ZyXEL Communications (VANTAGE CNM)
   (Case T-171/07) (1)

   (2008/C 183/58)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-428/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank’s Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV, Cefetra Feed Service BV, Cefetra Futures BV, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH (Industrial and commercial property — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Directive 98/44/EC — Article 9 — Patent protecting a product containing or consisting of genetic information — Material incorporating the product — Protection — Conditions)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank’s Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV, Cefetra Feed Service BV, Cefetra Futures BV, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH
   (Case C-428/08) (1)

   (Industrial and commercial property - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Directive 98/44/EC - Article 9 - Patent protecting a product containing or consisting of genetic information - Material incorporating the product - Protection - Conditions)
   2010/C 234/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank’s Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Monsanto Technology LLC

      Defendants: Cefetra BV, Cefetra Feed Service BV, Cefetra Futures BV, Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH

      Intervener in support of the defendants: Argentine State

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13) — Scope of the protection conferred by the patent — Product (a DNA sequence) forming part of a material (soy meal) imported into the European Union — Absolute protection conferred on the DNA sequence by national legislation — Patent granted before the Directive was adopted — Articles 27 and 30 of the TRIPS Agreement

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is to be interpreted as not conferring patent right protection in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, in which the patented product is contained in the soy meal, where it does not perform the function for which it is patented, but did perform that function previously in the soy plant, of which the meal is a processed product, or would possibly again be able to perform that function after it had been extracted from the soy meal and inserted into the cell of a living organism.

               2.

               Article 9 of the Directive effects an exhaustive harmonisation of the protection it confers, with the result that it precludes the national patent legislation from offering absolute protection to the patented product as such, regardless of whether it performs its function in the material containing it.

               3.

               Article 9 of the Directive precludes the holder of a patent issued prior to the adoption of that directive from relying on the absolute protection for the patented product accorded to it under the national legislation then applicable.

               4.

               Articles 27 and 30 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) do not affect the interpretation given of Article 9 of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 06.12.2008.


title: Case F-54/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Ehrhardt v Parliament

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/67

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 September 2008 — Ehrhardt v Parliament
   (Case F-54/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/130)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 29.


title: Case T-180/06: Action brought on 7 July 2006 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v OHIM (three-dimensional mark Bocksbeutel )

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/34

         Action brought on 7 July 2006 — Fränkischer Weinbauverband v OHIM (three-dimensional mark ‘Bocksbeutel’)
   (Case T-180/06)
   (2006/C 212/61)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Fränkischer Weinbauverband e.V. (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by N. Hetzelt and A. Weigand, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   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 25 April 2006 (Case No R 0479/2004-1);

               —

               order the defendant to publish Community trade mark No 002323301 in accordance with Article 40 of the Community trade mark regulation and;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional collective mark ‘Bocksbeutel’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 42 (Registration No 2 323 301).

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The mark applied for is capable of being protected as it has the necessary distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 64 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). Furthermore, the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 November 1995 in Case C-466/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (Bananas - Common organization of the market - Import regime - Assessment of validity)

text:
No C 16/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 1 . 96
2 , such interim relief can be ordered by the national court            of the grounds of the order for reference, has disclosed no
      only if:                                                          factor of such a kind as to affect their validity.
      — that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity         H OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
         of the Community Aft and, if the validity of the
         contested Act is not already in issue before the Court
         of Justice, itself refers the question to the Court of
         Justice;                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 9 November 1995
      — there is urgency, in that the interim relief is necessary
         to avoid serious and irreparable damage being                  in Case C-475/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling
         caused to the party seeking the relief;                        from the Sozialgericht Speyer): Jean-Louis Thévenon and
                                                                        Stadt Speyer — Sozialamt v. Landesversicherungsanstalt
      — the court takes due account of the Community                                              Rheinland-Pfalz (')
         interest; and
                                                                        (Social security — Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)
      — in its assessment of all those conditions, it respects          No 1408/71 — Replacement by Regulation (EEC)
         any decisions of the Court ofJustice or the Court of           No 1408/71 of social security conventions concluded
         First Instance ruling on the lawfulness of the                                      between Member States)
          Regulation or on an application for interim                                                 ( 96/C 16/04 )
          measures seeking similar interim relief at
          Community level.                                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
i 1 ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-475/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty by the Sozialgericht Speyer ( Social Court,
                                                                        Speyer ) ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Louis
                       of 9 November 1995                               Thévenon and Stadt Speyer — Sozialamt ( Social Assistance
in Case C-466/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               Office of the City of Speyer ) of the one part
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Atlanta                      and the Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz
Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v. Bundesamt                   ( Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Insurance Office ) of the
             für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (')                      other part on the interpretation of Council Regulation
                                                                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
 (Bananas — Common organization ofthe market — Import                   social security schemes to employed persons, to
               regime — Assessment of validity)                         self-employed persons and to members of their families
                             ( 96/ C 16/03 )                            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                (Language of the case: German)                          No L 230, p . 6 ), and of Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann
In Case C-466/93 : reference to the Court under Article 1-77             ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht                            Judges; Advocate-General: G. Cosmas; Registrar: D.
 ( Administrative Court ) Frankfurt am Main for a                        Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, has given a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                judgment on 9 November 1995 , in which it rules:
court between Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and
 Others and Bundesamt für Ernàhrung und Forstwirtschaft                 Articles 48 (2) and SI of the EC Treaty must be interpreted
— on the validity of Title IV and Article 21 ( 2 ) of Council            as meaning that they do not preclude the replacement by
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
 common organization of the market in bananas ( OJ No                    the application of social security schemes to employed
 L 47, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez                  persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
 Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.             families moving within the Community, as amended and
 Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.              updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of
 Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho               2 June 1983, pursuant to Article 6 thereof, of a convention
 de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P.              binding two Member States exclusively where, prior to the
Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                              entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , an
 Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for              insured person completed insurance periods in only one of
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 1995 , in             the signatory States, even where the application of the
 which it rules :                                                        bilateral social security convention would have placed that
                                                                         insured person in a more favourable position.
 Consideration of Title IV and Article 21 (2) of Council
 Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
 common organization of the market in bananas, in the light


title: Case F-42/09: Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Esneau-Kappé v Europol

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/63

         Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Esneau-Kappé v Europol
   (Case F-42/09)
   2009/C 180/116
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Anne Esneau-Kappé (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis and D. Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was not possible to offer her a permanent post, and also the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the former decision.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 June 2008 whereby the defendant informed the applicant that it could not offer her permanent employment and also the decision made on her complaint on 7 January 2009 that the grounds of complaint brought by the applicant against the decision of 12 June 2008 were unfounded;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-348/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Swingward Ltd, and Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd v Swingward Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co. v Dowelhurst Ltd (Industrial and commercial property — Trade mark rights — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel imports — Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Swingward Ltd, and Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd v Swingward Ltd, and Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co. v Dowelhurst Ltd
   (Case C-348/04) (1)

   (Industrial and commercial property - Trade mark rights - Pharmaceutical products - Parallel imports - Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark)
   (2007/C 96/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd, and Eli Lilly and Co.

      Defendants: Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Free movement of goods — Use of a trade mark by the parallel importer of a pharmaceutical product — Change in packaging — Requirements for placing on the market laid down by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova — Interpretation
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may legitimately oppose further commercialisation of a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging with an additional external label applied by the importer, unless

                           —

                           it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of the overstickered product under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

                           —

                           it is shown that the new label cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

                           —

                           the packaging clearly states who overstickered the product and the name of the manufacturer;

                           —

                           the presentation of the overstickered product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the label must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

                           —

                           the importer gives notice to the trade mark proprietor before the overstickered product is put on sale, and, on demand, supplies him with a specimen of that product.

               2.

               The condition that the repackaging of the pharmaceutical product, either by reboxing the product and re-applying the trade mark or by applying a label to the packaging containing the product, be necessary for its further commercialisation in the importing Member State, as one of the conditions which, if fulfilled, prevent the proprietor under Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, from opposing such commercialisation, is directed solely at the fact of repackaging and not at the manner and style of the repackaging.

               3.

               The condition that the presentation of the pharmaceutical product must not be such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor — as a necessary condition for preventing the proprietor, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, from legitimately opposing further commercialisation of a pharmaceutical product where the parallel importer has either reboxed the product and re-applied the trade mark or applied a label to the packaging containing the product — is not limited to cases where the repackaging is defective, of poor quality, or untidy.

               4.

               The question whether the fact that a parallel importer:

                           —

                           fails to affix the trade mark to the new exterior carton (‘de-branding’), or

                           —

                           applies either his own logo or house-style or get-up or a get-up used for a number of different products (‘co-branding’), or

                           —

                           positions the additional label so as wholly or partially to obscure the proprietor's trade mark, or

                           —

                           fails to state on the additional label that the trade mark in question belongs to the proprietor, or

                           —

                           prints the name of the parallel importer in capital letters,

                     is liable to damage the trade mark's reputation is a question of fact for the national court to decide in the light of the circumstances of each case.

               5.

               In situations such as those in the main proceedings, it is for the parallel importers to prove the existence of the conditions that

                           —

                           reliance on trade mark rights by the proprietor in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States;

                           —

                           the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging;

                           —

                           the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the product and the name of the manufacturer;

                           —

                           the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor; thus, the repackaging must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and

                           —

                           the importer must give notice to the trade mark proprietor before the repackaged product is put on sale and, on demand, supply him with a specimen of the repackaged product,

                     and which, if fulfilled, would prevent the proprietor from lawfully opposing the further commercialisation of a repackaged pharmaceutical product.
               As regards the condition that it must be shown that the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging, it is sufficient, however, that the parallel importer furnishes evidence that leads to the reasonable presumption that that condition has been fulfilled. This applies a fortiori also to the condition that the presentation of the repackaged product must not be such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its proprietor. Where the importer furnishes such initial evidence that the latter condition has been fulfilled, it will then be for the proprietor of the trade mark, who is best placed to assess whether the repackaging is liable to damage his reputation and that of the trade mark, to prove that they have been damaged.

               6.

               Where a parallel importer has failed to give prior notice to the trade mark proprietor concerning a repackaged pharmaceutical product, he infringes that proprietor's rights on the occasion of any subsequent importation of that product, so long as he has not given the proprietor such notice. The sanction for that infringement must be not only proportionate, but also sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent to ensure that Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, is fully effective. A national measure under which, in the case of such an infringement, the trade mark proprietor is entitled to claim financial remedies on the same basis as if the goods had been spurious, is not in itself contrary to the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court, however, to determine the amount of the financial remedies according to the circumstances of each case, in the light in particular of the extent of damage to the trade mark proprietor caused by the parallel importer's infringement and in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-26/08: Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/30

         Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
   (Case T-26/08)
   (2008/C 92/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal Lda (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Serono Genetics Institute SA (Evry, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal OHIM dated 20 November 2007 (Case R 10/2007-1) and declare the request for invalidation brought by the appellant well founded;

               —

               annul all cost orders made against the appellant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order the latter to bear the costs of the appellant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘FAMOXIN’ for goods and services in class 5 — Community trade mark No 2 491 298

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Serono Genetics Institute SA

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

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The national word mark ‘LANOXIN’ for goods in class 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 52 and 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal found the earlier trade mark to be used for ‘pharmaceutical preparations with digoxin for cardiovascular illnesses’ and not ‘pharmaceutical preparations with digoxin’ and as it assessed the relevant public, the level of attentiveness of the different parts of the relevant public and the similarity of the conflicting trade marks and goods incorrectly.


title: Case C-150/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA
   (Case C-150/16)
   (2016/C 200/13)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant at first instance and appellant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

      Defendant at first instance and respondent: Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the decision of the general shareholders’ meeting of COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA — adopted with the vote of the Romanian state, represented by the Ministerul Economiei — Departamentul pentru energie, which, as a shareholder, owns 77,17 % of that company’s share capital — by which it was agreed to extinguish SC ELECTROCENTRALE GRUP SA’s debt, totalling RON 28 709 475,13, to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, by way of transfer of an asset in lieu of payment, consisting of property registered under No 70301 in the land register for the municipality of Chișcani, Brăila district, and by which it was agreed at the same that ELECTROCENTRALE SC GRUP SA would be paid the difference between the market value of the asset and the sum owed to COMPLEXUL ENERGETIC OLTENIA SA, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that is to say: (i) does it constitute a measure financed by the State or through State resources, (ii) is it selective in nature, and (iii) may it affect trade between the Member States?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, was such State aid subject to the notification obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case C-62/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany)) — Land Hessen v Florence Feyerbacher (Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the ECB — Article 36 — Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Articles 13, 15 and 23 — ECB Headquarters Agreement — Article 15 — Applicability to ECB staff of the provisions of German social welfare law providing for a parental allowance)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany)) — Land Hessen v Florence Feyerbacher
   (Case C-62/11) (1)

   (Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the ECB - Article 36 - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Articles 13, 15 and 23 - ECB Headquarters Agreement - Article 15 - Applicability to ECB staff of the provisions of German social welfare law providing for a parental allowance)
   2012/C 295/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Land Hessen

      Respondent: Florence Feyerbacher

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt — Interpretation of Article 15 of the Agreement of 18 September 1998 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank on the Headquarters of that institution, in conjunction with Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank — Right of a German official of the European Central Bank to receive a parental allowance provided for under German law — Classification of the Agreement on the Headquarters of the European Central Bank as part of European Union law or as an international treaty — Applicability of the provisions of German social law providing for the parental allowance to employees of the European Central Bank

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15 of the Agreement of 18 September 1998 between the German Government and the European Central Bank on the Headquarters of that institution, read in conjunction with Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, in the version annexed to the EC Treaty, does not preclude the Federal Republic of Germany from being able to grant an allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case C-23/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet
   (Case C-23/14)
   2014/C 78/10
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

      Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

      Intervener: Bring Citymail Denmark A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               What guidelines should be used to decide whether the application by a dominant undertaking of a rebate scheme with a standardised volume threshold having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference constitutes an abuse of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
               In its answer the Court is requested to clarify what relevance it has to the assessment whether the rebate scheme’s thresholds are set in such a way that the rebate scheme applies to the majority of customers on the market.
               In its answer the Court is further requested to clarify what relevance, if any, the dominant undertaking’s prices and costs have to the evaluation pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty of such a rebate scheme (relevance of a ‘competitor as efficient’ test).
               At the same time the Court is requested to clarify what relevance the characteristics of the market have in this connection, including whether the characteristics of the market can justify the foreclosure effect being demonstrated by examinations and analyses other than a ‘competitor as efficient’ test (see, in that regard, paragraph 24 of the Commission’s communication on the application of Article 82).

               2.

               How probable and serious must the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme having the characteristics referred to in points 10 and 11 of the order for reference be for Article 82 of the EC Treaty to apply?

               3.

               Having regard to the answers given to Questions 1 and 2, what specific circumstances must the national court take into account in assessing whether a rebate scheme, in circumstances such as those described in the order for reference (characteristics of the market and the rebate scheme), has or is capable of having such a foreclosure effect in the specific case that it constitutes an abuse covered by Article 82 of the EC Treaty?
               In this connection, is it a requirement that the foreclosure effect is appreciable?


title: Case T-475/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER — Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-475/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 232/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented initially by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, H. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and G. Mannucci, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghidini, M. Mergati and C. Signorini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 500/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 500/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-330/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Burgas — Bulgaria) — Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Goods described as ‘heavy oils, lubricating oils or other oils for undergoing a specific process’  — Headings 2707 and 2710 — Aromatic and non-aromatic constituents — Relationship between the Combined Nomenclature and the Harmonised System)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Burgas — Bulgaria) — Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas
   (Case C-330/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Goods described as ‘heavy oils, lubricating oils or other oils for undergoing a specific process’ - Headings 2707 and 2710 - Aromatic and non-aromatic constituents - Relationship between the Combined Nomenclature and the Harmonised System))
   2014/C 282/19
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Аdministrativen sad — Burgas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lukoyl Neftohim Burgas AD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt Pristanishte Burgas Tsentar pri Mitnitsa Burgas

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The criterion to take into consideration in order to classify products with characteristics such as those of the product at issue in the main proceedings under Heading 2707 or Heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, is the content by weight of the aromatic constituents in relation to the non-aromatic constituents.

               2)

               The expression ‘aromatic constituents’ in Chapter 27 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, must be interpreted as being wider than ‘aromatic hydrocarbons’.

               3)

               It is, in principle, for the national courts to establish the most appropriate method to determine the content of aromatic constituents of a specific product in order to classify it under Heading 2707 or Heading 2710 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011.

               4)

               Point 1 of the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation No 1006/2011, on subheadings 2707 99 91 and 2707 99 99 thereof must be interpreted as being non-exhaustive, so that a product falling within Heading 2707 of the Combined Nomenclature which cannot be classified under a specific subheading must be classified under subheading 2707 99 99 thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 1999 in Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Transfers of part of remuneration in the currency of a Member State other than that of the seat of the institution — Home-purchase savings plan — Requirement of an undertaking by the financial institution to inform the institution of the existence of a request to liquidate the funds — Application manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 34/22                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
indicated by the applicant, and an award of compensation for              2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
non-material damage which he alleges he has sustained and
which he assesses provisionally at BEF 100 000 — the Court                3. It is unnecessary to rule on the application for legal aid made in
of First Instance (single Judge), J. Azizi, sitting as a single               Case T-148/98.
Judge; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on
9 December 1999, in which it:                                             4. It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to intervene
                                                                              made by PowerGen UK plc, National Power plc and British Coal
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible as far as the second part of          Corporation.
     the second plea is concerned;
                                                                          5. The applicants shall bear their own costs and, jointly and
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action for annulment as                     severally, pay those incurred by the Commission.
     unfounded;
3. Dismisses the action for compensation as unfounded;                    (1) OJ No C 358 of 21.11.1998 and No C 174 of 19.6.1999.
4. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ 1999 C 174.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 November 1999
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                      of 29 September 1999
                                                                          (Officials — Transfers of part of remuneration in the
in Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans and                     currency of a Member State other than that of the seat of the
Others and South Wales Small Mines Association v                          institution — Home-purchase savings plan — Requirement
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                        of an undertaking by the financial institution to inform the
                                                                          institution of the existence of a request to liquidate the funds
    (Action for annulment — Lateness — Inadmissibility)                                — Application manifestly unfounded)
                           (2000/C 34/42)                                                            (2000/C 34/43)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98: J.G. Evans, Gerry                  In Case T-93/99: Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina, an official at the
Plant and Mary Kathleen Plant, Dennis Jones, William Meyrick,             Joint Research Centre, Ispra, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio,
Glen Jones and Daphne Jones, David V. Austin, Mostyn Jones,               of the Milan Bar, and Franco Colussi, of the Luxembourg Bar,
Fforch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd, John Phillips, Desmond                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ivor Evans, David Raymond Evans, D.B. Diplock, R.T. Kings-                Mr Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
ton, J.R. McCann, and De Powell, established in the United                Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) — application for
Kingdom, represented by Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of                     annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the request
England and Wales, and Thomas Graham, Solicitor, with an                  to transfer part of the applicant’s salary to a home-purchase
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Messrs                 savings account in the absence of an undertaking by the bank
Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe and South Wales Small                    to communicate any release of the money so as to allow the
Mines Association, based in Fochriw, Near Bargoed, United                 institution to monitor the actual use of the funds — the Court
Kingdom, represented by Thomas Sharpe QC and Mark                         of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
Brealey, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Sarah            President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Llewellyn Jones, Solicitor, with an address for service in                made an order on 12 November 1999, the operative part of
Luxembourg at the office of Victor Gillen, 13 Rue Aldringen,              which is as follows:
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent
Kirsi Leivo) — application for annulment of Commission                    1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation
Decision No 15656 of 30 July 1998 rejecting a complaint of                    in law.
price discrimination — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy                2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
29 September 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
1. Cases T-148/98 and T-162/98 are joined for the purposes of
     the order.


title: Case T-201/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM ( 333 )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/35

         Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (‘333’)
   (Case T-201/07)
   (2007/C 183/69)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza ‘Technopol’ Sp. z o.o. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside in its entirety the decision delivered on 22 March 2007 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case No R 1277/2006-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘333’ for goods in Class 16

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: misapplication of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designation ‘333’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-575/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-575/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 282/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.


title: Case C-345/07: Action brought on 25 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/30

         Action brought on 25 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-345/07)
   (2007/C 211/59)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and P. Dejmek)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive), or in event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Hellenic Republic pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/49/EC into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 44.


title: Case C-95/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/9/EC — Failure to designate the authorities responsible for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/6

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-95/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/9/EC - Failure to designate the authorities responsible for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice)
   (2008/C 327/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 28) — Failure to designate the authorities responsible for the inspection of laboratories and for the audit of studies carried out by laboratories to assess compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP);

               2.

               orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116 of 9.5.2008.


title: Case F-129/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Kremlis v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/32

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Kremlis v Commission
   (Case F-129/07)
   (2008/C 8/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georges-Stavros Kremlis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 21 December 2006, rejecting the applicant's candidature for the vacant post of head of representation of the Commission to Greece and appointing another candidate to that post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant relies on very similar pleas in law to those relied on in Case F-128/07, the notice of which is published in this issue of the Official Journal of the European Union.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2004 in Case C-319/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris): Serge Briheche v Ministre de l'Intérieur, Ministre de l'Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice (Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women — Article 141(4) EC — Directive 76/207/EEC — Conditions of access to public-sector employment — Provisions reserving to widows who have not remarried the benefit of the exemption from the age-limit for obtaining access to that employment)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 30 September 2004
   in Case C-319/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris): Serge Briheche v Ministre de l'Intérieur, Ministre de l'Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice (1)

   (Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women - Article 141(4) EC - Directive 76/207/EEC - Conditions of access to public-sector employment - Provisions reserving to widows who have not remarried the benefit of the exemption from the age-limit for obtaining access to that employment)
   (2004/C 284/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-319/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal administratif de Paris (France), made by decision of 3 July 2003, received at the Court on 24 July 2003, in the proceedings between Serge Briheche and Ministre de l'Intérieur, Ministre de l'Éducation nationale and Ministre de la Justice — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 3(1) and Article 2(4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national provision, such as that in question in the main proceedings, which reserves the exemption from the age-limit for obtaining access to public-sector employment to widows who have not remarried who are obliged to work, excluding widowers who have not remarried who are in the same situation.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 20.9.2003.


title: Case T-219/09: Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Balfe and Others v Parliament

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/39

         Action brought on 19 May 2009 — Balfe and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-219/09)
   2009/C 205/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Richard Balfe (Newmarket, United Kingdom), C (Milan, Italy), C (Madrid, Spain), C (Lancashire, United Kingdom), C (Gnobkummerfeld, Germany), C (Longré, France), C (Saint-Martin de Crau, France), C (Bregenz, Austria), C (West Yorkshire, United Kingdom), C (Marseille, France), C (Rudsebheim, Germany), C (Devon, United Kingdom), C (Barcelona, Spain), C (Paris, France), C (Wexford, Ireland), C (Bozen, Italy), C (Madrid), C (Porto, Portugal), C (Iaf Nennhau, United Kingdom), C (Milan), C (Limonest, France), C (Colares-Sintra, Portugal), C (Benfica do Ribatejo, Portugal), C (Saint-Étienne, France), C (Cournon-d'Auvergne, France) C (Lutterworth, Leics, United Kingdom), C (Cumbria, United Kingdom), C (Oxfordshire, United Kingdom), C (Bratislava, Slovakia), C (Poland), C (Warsaw, Poland), C (Radom, Poland), C (Boulogne-Billancourt, France), C (Helsinki, Finland), C (Lyon, France), C (Athens, Greece), C (Funchal, Portugal), C (London, United Kingdom), C (Le Val-d'Ajol, France), C (Tallinn, Estonia), C (Glasgow, United Kingdom), C (Riom, France), C (Hampshire, United Kingdom), C (Coventry, United Kingdom), C (Helsinki), C (Cracow, Poland), C (Pamplona, Spain), C (Scotland, United Kingdom), C (Lisbon, Portugal), C (Lisbon), C (Paris), C (Budapest, Hungary), C (Maia, Portugal), C (Bielsko-Biala, Poland), C (Wetherby, United Kingdom), C (La Possession, France), C (Cornwall, United Kingdom), C (Epernay, France), C (Bolton, United Kingdom), C (Kępno, Poland), C (Amsterdam, Netherlands), C (Palermo, Italy), C (Kent, United Kingdom), C (Bedfordshire, United Kingdom) C (Warsaw), Pension Fund — Members of the European Parliament (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S Orlandi, A Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Bureau of the Parliament of 9 March and 3 April 2009 amending the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme for Members of the European Parliament;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicants seek the annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 9 March and 3 April 2009 amending the rules on the Additional (Voluntary) Pension Scheme in Annex VIII of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament. The amendments essentially concern the withdrawal of the possibility to take early retirement from age 50 and the possibility to receive the pension as a lump sum, and the raising of the retirement age from 60 to 63 years.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely as to the substance on four pleas:

               —

               the Parliament is not competent to unilaterally amend the terms of the contract governing the terms and conditions for joining the Additional Voluntary Pension Scheme;

               —

               infringement of acquired rights and the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and legal certainty by failing to comply, in particular, with the clear wording of the Statute of Members of the European Parliament and by failing to provide for any transitional measures;

               —

               errors in the grounds and reasons in the statements of reasons of the contested acts, as far as concerns the legal regime of that specific, supplementary and optional type of pension scheme as regards the management and the financial position of the pension fund;

               —

               infringement of the principle that obligations should be performed in good faith and that purely arbitrary clauses are null and void by unilaterally and retroactively amending the terms of the contract and by failing to provide for compensation.


title: Case T-321/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Juchem and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals — Actual damage)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Juchem and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-321/03) (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals - Actual damage)
   (2006/C 224/92)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Juchem GmbH (Eppelborn, Germany) and the 223 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and N. Rampal, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and M. Moore, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Balta and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently M. Balta and Z. Kupčová, Agents)

      Intervening parties supporting the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicants and the Parliament and the Council shall bear their own costs.

               3.

               The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-102/12 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2012 by Stefan Städter against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-532/11 Stefan Städter v European Central Bank

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/8

         Appeal brought on 27 February 2012 by Stefan Städter against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-532/11 Stefan Städter v European Central Bank
   (Case C-102/12 P)
   2012/C 399/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Stefan Städter (represented by: M.C. Kerber, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank
   By its order of 15 November 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.


title: Case T-655/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015  — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green) (Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark consisting of a gradient of five shades of the colour green — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reclassification of the mark applied for — Article 43(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Enercon v OHIM (Shades of the colour green)
   (Case T-655/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark consisting of a gradient of five shades of the colour green - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reclassification of the mark applied for - Article 43(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 089/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm and S. Overhage, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 247/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a gradient of five shades of the colour green as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Joined Cases T-544/12 and T-546/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring (PENSA PHARMA and pensa) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark PENSA PHARMA and Community figurative mark pensa — Earlier national and Benelux word marks PENTASA — Express consent to the registration of the Community trade mark before submission of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 53(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — Pensa Pharma v OHIM — Ferring and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring (PENSA PHARMA and pensa)
   (Joined Cases T-544/12 and T-546/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark PENSA PHARMA and Community figurative mark pensa - Earlier national and Benelux word marks PENTASA - Express consent to the registration of the Community trade mark before submission of the application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 53(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pensa Pharma, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, M. González Gordon and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands); and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: initially I. Fowler, Solicitor, A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, lawyers, subsequently I. Fowler, A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyer, and lastly I. Fowler and J. Fuhrmann)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2012 (Cases R 1883/2011-5 and R 1884/2011-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ferring BV and Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S, on the one hand, and Pensa Pharma SA, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Pensa Pharma, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.