title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 February 2000 in Case T-147/96: Howard Batho v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Objection of inadmissibility — New and substantial fact — Confirmatory act — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/25
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maria Dennewald, 12 Avenue                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
de la Porte Neuve, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
Frédéric Anton and Georg Berrisch) — application for taxation
of costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 18 September 1995 in Case T-168/94 Blackspur and Others                                    of 6 December 1999
v Council and Commission [19951 ECR II-2627 — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij,         in Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes v Commission of the
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                European Communities (1)
made an order on 7 February 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                        (Death of the applicant — Proceedings not continued by her
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed jointly and severally
                                                                                successors — No need to adjudicate)
by Blackspur DIY Ltd and by Steven Kellar, J.M.A. Glancy and
Ronald Cohen to the Council of the European Union is fixed at DEM
32 860.
                                                                                (2000/C 102/51)
(1) OJ C 277 of 15.10.1993.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        In Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes, residing in Porlock, United
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Kingdom, represented by Becket Bedford, Barrister, of the Bar
                                                                        of England and Wales, and John Kelly, Sarah Ferdinand and
                                                                        Jatinder Sandhu, of Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts
                      of 4 February 2000                                Hill, Birmingham v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Xavier Lewis), supported by The
in Case T-147/96: Howard Batho v Commission of the                      Grand Pub Company Ltd, whose registered office is in London,
                  European Communities (1)                              represented by John Boyce and Bertrand Louveaux, Solicitors,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Philippe Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill — application for
(Officials — Objection of inadmissibility — New and
                                                                        annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 March 1998
substantial fact — Confirmatory act — Classification in
                                                                        (Case IV/94.907/F3 - NAIL) rejecting the applicant’s complaint
       grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                        under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
                                                                        6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85
                       (2000/C 102/50)                                  and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
                                                                        p. 87) concerning the standard lease used by Inntrepreneur
                                                                        Estates Ltd for letting its licensed premises in the United
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Kingdom, requiring tenants to purchase certain specified types
                                                                        of beer exclusively from the supplier designated by the lessor,
                                                                        and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by
In Case T-147/96: Howard Batho, official of the Commission
                                                                        reason of that decision — the Court (Third Chamber), compo-
of the European Communities, residing in Honnekinberg,
                                                                        sed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Belgium, represented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the
                                                                        H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 December 1999,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        the operative part of which is as follows:
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
sia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
                                                                        1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
Commission decision of 12 February 1996 classifying the
applicant — the Court of First Instance (single judge) has made
an order on 4 February 2000 in which it:
                                                                        2. The parties, including the intervener, shall bear their own costs.
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.                             (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case T-211/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Three-dimensional Community mark — Form of an oven — Genuine use of a mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51 (1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Nature of use of the mark — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/48

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)
   (Case T-211/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Three-dimensional Community mark - Form of an oven - Genuine use of a mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51 (1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Nature of use of the mark - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))
   (2015/C 389/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippoldiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser and A. Grohmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, D. Botis and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 January 2014 (Case R 927/2013-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Toni Klement and Bullerjan GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Toni Klement to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-19/15: Action brought on 16 January 2015  — Gómez Echevarría/OHIM — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/33

         Action brought on 16 January 2015 — Gómez Echevarría/OHIM — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s)
   (Case T-19/15)
   (2015/C 089/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría (Benalmádena, Spain) (represented by: E. López-Chicheri y Selma, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M and M Direct Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘wax by Yuli’s’ — Community trade mark No 9 0 99  367

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 in Case R 951/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, should the form of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 and dismiss the application for a declaration that Community trade mark No 9 0 99  367‘wax by Yuli’s’ is invalid, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings;

               —

               in the further alternative, should the forms of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 as to the costs and set aside those incurred in connection with representation in the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the application for a declaration that the trade mark was invalid was made by way of an abuse of power.

               —

               Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 53(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that there is no likelihood of confusion.

               —

               Incorrect application and interpretation of Rule 94(1) and (7) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, read in conjunction with Article 85(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-267/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Gerichtshof by order of 11 June 2001 in the case of Jaroslav Nyvlt v Flughafen Wien AG

text:
C 303/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.10.2001
2.  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Ge-
                                                                       richtshof by order of 11 June 2001 in the case of Jaroslav
                                                                                Nyvlt v Flughafen Wien AG
    (a)   are determinations of fixed amounts as described in
          1 above to be regarded as agreements (or decisions)                                    (Case C-267/01)
          of the leading associations of statutory sickness
          funds which restrict competition, in particular
          within the meaning of Article 81(1)(a) EC, and are                                     (2001/C 303/08)
          prohibited by Article 81(1) EC?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 11 June 2001 of the
    (b) is question 2(a) to be answered in the affirmative at          Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), which was received at
          least where the object of the regulation concerning          the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
          fixed amounts is, inter alia, to exploit all reserves        the case of Jaroslav Nyvlt v Flughafen Wien on the following
          of medicinal product manufacturers in terms of               questions:
          economy as regards sale price, and the application
          of the regulation concerning fixed amounts in the
          Member State so far has had the effect that, of the          1.   Is Paragraph 145.35 of JAR-145, which forms an annex
          finished medicinal product packages offered on the                to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December
          market that fall within the regulations concerning                1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements
          fixed amounts, approximately 93 % do not now                      and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation
          exceed the amount fixed for them?                                 (OJ 1991 L 373, p. 4), having regard, if necessary, to the
                                                                            explanation given by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA),
                                                                            to be interpreted as requiring the owner of a maintenance
                                                                            organisation to maintain records of his staff authorised
3.  If the answer to either or both of the questions in 2 above             to certify aircraft fit for service in such detail that it is
    is in the affirmative:                                                  possible to infer from those records not only the area of
                                                                            responsibility but also the specific jobs performed on
                                                                            certain aircraft types in a certain period of time (year)?
    Can a system of fixed amounts as described in questions 1
    and 2 be exempted from Article 81(1) EC under                      2.   Is Paragraph 145.35 of JAR-145, which forms an annex
    Article 86(2), first sentence, EC, even though when they                to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December
    determine fixed amounts the leading associations of                     1991, having regard, if necessary, to the explanation
    statutory sickness funds represent the biggest purchasers               given by the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), to be
    on the medicinal product market, who when taken                         interpreted as meaning that
    together dominate the market, and it would be possible,
    as a solution to the problem of trying to reduce costs in
    the health sector, to grant power to determine such fixed               a)    it requires the owner of the maintenance organis-
    amounts to an institution other than a participant in the                     ation to hand over those records to staff authorised
    medicinal product market, in particular to the Federal                        to certify aircraft fit for service upon termination of
    Government or a Federal Minister?                                             their employment,
                                                                            b)    it is sufficient to hand over copies in order to satisfy
4.  If the answer to question 3 is also in the affirmative:                       that obligation, or
                                                                            c)    such copies must be confirmed by the employer by
    a)    what conditions must be set forth and proved by                         signature?
          the leading associations of statutory sickness funds
          so that they may be exempted under Article 86(2),            3.   On whom do the obligations which may exist within the
          first sentence, EC in relation to determinations of               meaning of Question 2 fall where the employer of the
          fixed amounts?; or                                                employee authorised to certify aircraft fit for service is
                                                                            not the owner of the maintenance organisation, but a
                                                                            third party who has hired the employee from that owner
    b)    is the grant of an exemption under Article 86(2), first           on the basis of a group relationship or a separate contract
          sentence, EC precluded in any case by Article 86(2),              to provide work services?
          second sentence, EC owing to the effects the system
          of fixed amounts has on trade?                               4.   Do the obligations which may exist in accordance with
                                                                            the answers to Questions 1 to 3 preclude more extensive
                                                                            national provisions?


title: Case T-351/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Provincia di Imperia v Commission (European Social Fund — Community financial aid in the area of innovative measures under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 — Call for proposals — Rejection of the proposal)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Provincia di Imperia v Commission
   (Case T-351/05) (1)

   (European Social Fund - Community financial aid in the area of innovative measures under Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 - Call for proposals - Rejection of the proposal)
   (2008/C 79/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Provincia di Imperia (Italy) (represented by: S. Rostagno and K. Platteau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and A. Weimar, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 June 2005 not to accept the proposal presented by the applicant in response to call for proposals VP/2003/21 ‘Innovative Approaches to the Management of Change’, published in the context of innovative measures under Article 6 of the Regulation on the European Social Fund and all measures connected with that decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Provincia di Imperia to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case T-453/07: Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Dylog Italia/OHIM — GSI Office Management (IP Manager)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/33

         Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Dylog Italia/OHIM — GSI Office Management (IP Manager)
   (Case T-453/07)
   (2008/C 37/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Dylog Italia SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Ruo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GSI Office Management GmbH (Planegg, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 27 September 2007, of the First Board of Appeal R982/2005-4, in so far as the Board established that there was no likelihood of confusion in respect of all the services for which registration is sought in classes 35, 38 and the services in class 42 which were found similar to the goods covered by the earlier Italian mark; and subsidiarily

               —

               annulment of the contested decision in so far as the Board established that there was no likelihood of confusion in respect of all the services in class 38 and the services in class 42 which were found similar to the goods covered by the earlier Italian mark;

               —

               the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal market (OHIM) be ordered to pay the applicant's costs in accordance with Article 87(2) of the rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: GSI Office Management GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘IP MANAGER’ for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 — application No 2 177 277

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

      Mark or sign cited: The earlier national and international word marks ‘MANAGER’ for goods in classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 and the national word mark ‘HOTEL MANAGER’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-36/07: Action brought on 31 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/17

         Action brought on 31 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-36/07)
   (2007/C 82/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Forms of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 laying down animal health rules for the importation into and transit through the Community of certain live ungulate animals, amending Directives 90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive 72/462/EEC (1), or by failing in any event to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/68/EC expired on 20 November 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 321.


title: Case C-148/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2014  — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2014 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Nordzucker AG
   (Case C-148/14)
   2014/C 235/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Respondent: Nordzucker AG

      Additional party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Question referred

   Must Article 16(3) and (4) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the excess emissions penalty must also be applied in the case where an operator has, by 30 April of a given year, surrendered a number of allowances corresponding to the total emissions stated in its report on emissions from the installation for the preceding year, and that report has been assessed as satisfactory by the verifier, but where the competent authority, after 30 April, has established that the verified emissions report had erred by understating the total quantity of emissions, the report was duly corrected and the operator surrendered the additional allowances within the new period for surrender?

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


title: Case T-263/12: Order of the General Court of 14 April 2014  — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Res judicata — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation of individual communication — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Proportionality — Competence of the Council — Misuse of powers — Error of law — Definition of support given to nuclear proliferation — Error of assessment — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/25

         Order of the General Court of 14 April 2014 — Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council
   (Case T-263/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Res judicata - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation of individual communication - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Proportionality - Competence of the Council - Misuse of powers - Error of law - Definition of support given to nuclear proliferation - Error of assessment - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   2014/C 194/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Cujo and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               In addition to bearing its own costs, Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran shall pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay its costs.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25. 8. 2012.


title: Case C-218/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC — Supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/22

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-218/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/87/EC - Supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 331/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-379/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands)) — TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd and Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd v TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5 — Products bearing a trade mark released for free circulation and placed under the duty suspension arrangement without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark — Right of that proprietor to oppose that placing — Definition of ‘using in the course of trade’)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands)) — TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV v Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd and Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd v TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV
   (Case C-379/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5 - Products bearing a trade mark released for free circulation and placed under the duty suspension arrangement without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Right of that proprietor to oppose that placing - Definition of ‘using in the course of trade’))
   (2015/C 302/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV, Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd

      Defendants: Bacardi & Company Ltd, Bacardi International Ltd, TOP Logistics BV, Van Caem International BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5 of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark registered in one or more Member States may oppose a third party placing goods bearing that trade mark under the duty suspension arrangement after they have been introduced into the EEA and released for free circulation without the consent of that proprietor.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-320/07: Action brought on 24 August 2007 — Jones e.a. v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/37

         Action brought on 24 August 2007 — Jones e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-320/07)
   (2007/C 247/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Glenn Jones and Daphne Jones (Neath, Wales), FForch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd (Neath, Wales), Desmond Ivor Evans and David Raymond Evans (Maesteg, Wales) (represented by: D.I.W. Jeffreys, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 in Case COMP/37.037 concerning the applicants' complaint of unlawful price discrimination by the Central Electricity Generating Board;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This is an application lodged pursuant to Article 230 EC seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 (Case COMP/37.037 — SWSMA) rejecting a complaint according to which pricing practices adopted by the Central Electricity Generating Board in the period 1984 to 1990 in relation to coal producers constituted unlawful price discrimination towards private coal producers including the applicants, which was contrary to Article 4(b) of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty then in force.
   The applicants contend that, in reaching this decision, the Commission has committed a number of fundamental errors of law and/or of appreciation and thus, the decision should be annulled.
   The applicants claim that the Commission was wrong as a matter of law to assess the question of price-discrimination on a country-wide basis rather than with reference to the local market in which the complainants operated. Moreover, the applicants submit that the Commission was wrong in stating that the licensed private mines could only supply limited amounts of coal and on a short term basis, taking into account the size of the mining facilities and British Coal Corporation's licensing policy. Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission was wrong to conclude that since the ECSC Treaty has expired and that it no longer enjoys exclusive competence with regards to infringements of the latter, a Commission decision was no longer required before judicial protection was sought before national courts.


title: Case F-51/14: Action brought on 3 June 2014  — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/62

         Action brought on 3 June 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-51/14)
   2014/C 292/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: EEAS

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 3 in the 2013 promotion exercise and seeking damages for the non-material loss allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 9 October 2013 fixing the list of officials promoted in the 2013 promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case C-311/07: Action brought on 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/24

         Action brought on 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-311/07)
   (2007/C 211/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinaI products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1), by failing to lay down a time-limit in accordance with that provision for the inclusion of medicinal products in the yellow or green sections of the ‘Erstattungskodex’ (Reimbursement Code);

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Directive 89/105/EEC aims, inter alia, to remove disparities in national measures of an economic nature which are adopted by the Member States in order to control public health expenditure on medicinal products. That includes measures to limit the range of products covered by national health insurance systems. In order to prevent such disparities from hindering intra-Community trade in medicinal products, the Directive lays down certain requirements in respect of the procedure for including products within the list of medicinal products covered by national health insurance systems. Accordingly, Article 6(1) of the Directive sets a time-limit for decisions on the inclusion of medicinal products in that ‘positive list’.
   In Austria, there are three different categories of reimbursement within the list of products covered by the health insurance system. The ‘green section’ covers medicinal products, the prescription and reimbursement of which without prior approval by the social security authority is appropriate and justified on medical and economic grounds. The costs of medicinal products listed in the ‘yellow section’ are reimbursed only in specific well-founded cases after prior approval by the social security authority. Finally, the ‘red section’ covers medicinal products in respect of which there is an application pending for inclusion in the yellow or green sections. The costs of medicinal products listed in the red section are reimbursed in specific well-founded cases after prior approval by the social security authority, provided that there is no alternative in the yellow or green sections. A valid application for inclusion of a medicinal product in the yellow or green sections of the Reimbursement Code thus necessarily means that that product is included in the red list for a certain period of time. Under the Austrian rules, medicinal products in the red section can remain in that section for no more than 24 months. If the average EU price cannot be established, the time-limit is extended to 36 months.
   That rule is incompatible with Article 6(1) of Directive 89/10/EEC, because there is no guarantee that a decision on the inclusion of a medicinal product in the yellow or green sections, as required under that provision of the Directive, will be taken within 90 or 180 days.
   As the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 12 June 2003 in Case C-229/00 Commission v Finland, the objectives of the Directive would be compromised if a Member State were able to introduce a dual procedure for the establishment of a list of medicinal products qualifying for higher-rate reimbursement, one pursuant to the obligations laid down by Article 6(1) of the Directive, the other being exempt in part from those obligations and, in part, not complying with the objectives laid down by that Directive. Contrary to the Austrian Government's view, it is not only applications for inclusion in a positive list, but also applications for inclusion in a particular category of such a list, that must be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the Directive if, as in Austria, inclusion in that category entails more favourable conditions of reimbursement than inclusion in another category or remaining in the current category. Accordingly, it is necessary to ensure that decisions on such applications are taken within the period laid down under Article 6(1) of the Directive.
   Since Austrian law does not make such provision, it is incompatible with the Community legislation referred to, having regard to the interpretation of that legislation by the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 June 1997 in Case C-368/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien): Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags- und vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Measures having equivalent effect - Distribution of periodicals - Competition games - National prohibition)

text:
16 . 8 . 97          I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 252/9
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                          of 26 June 1997
                        of 25 June 1997                               in Case C-368/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Handelsgericht Wien): Vereinigte Familiapress
in Case C- 13 1/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                Zeitungsverlags- und Vertriebs GmbH v. Heinrich Bauer
from the Bundessozialgericht): Carlos Mora Romero v.                                                 Verlag (')
          Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (')                 (Measures having equivalent effect — Distribution of
                                                                      periodicals — Competition games — National
(Workers — Equal treatment — Orphan 's benefits —
                                                                                prohibition)
                        Military service)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/ 17 )
                           ( 97/C 252/16 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                   In Case C-368/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Handelsgericht Wien for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                      court between Vereinigte Familiapress Zeitungsverlags
In Case C-131 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177          und vertriebs GmbH and Heinrich Bauer Verlag — on the
of the EC Treaty by the Bundessozialgericht for a                     interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.
court between Carlos Mora Romero and Landesversiche                  Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and L. Sevón,
rungsanstalt Rheinprovinz — on the interpretation of                  Presidents of Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
Articles 6, 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of               C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of                       ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; M. G. Tesauro,
 15 October 1968 1612/68 on freedom of movement for                   Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
workers within the Community ( OJ, English Special                    given a judgment on 26 June 1997, in which it has ruled
                                                                      as follows :
Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber),
composed of: G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber,
J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), G. Hirsch
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                     Article 30 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as not
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                  precluding application of legislation of a Member State the
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which            effect of which is to prohibit the distribution on its
 it has ruled :                                                       territory by an undertaking established in another Member
                                                                      State of a periodical produced in that latter State
                                                                       containing prize puzzles or competitions which are
                                                                       lawfully organized in that State, provided that that
Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
                                                                      prohibition is proportionate to maintenance of press
                                                                      diversity and that that objective cannot be achieved by less
 Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                       restrictive means. This assumes, inter alia, that the
 security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                       newspapers offering the chance of winning a prize in
persons and to members of their families moving within                games, puzzles or competitions are in competition with
 the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                      small newspaper publishers who are deemed to be unable
 Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983, must be
 interpreted as meaning that where the legislation of a                to offer comparable prizes and the prospect of winning is
                                                                       liable to bring about a shift in demand. Furthermore, the
 Member State provides for extension of the right to
                                                                       national prohibition must not constitute an obstacle to the
 orphan 's benefit beyond the age of 25 for recipients of
                                                                       marketing of newspapers which, albeit containing prize
 benefits whose tranining has been interrupted by their
                                                                      games, puzzles or competitions, do not give readers
 military service, that State is required to assimilate
 military service in another Member State to military                  residing in the Member State concerned the opportunity to
                                                                       win a prize. It is for the national court to determine
 service under its own legislation.
                                                                       whether those conditions are satisfied on the basis of a
                                                                       study of the national press market concerned.
 (') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .


title: Case C-383/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2007 — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2007 — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg
   (Case C-383/07)
   (2007/C 283/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Stadt Regensburg
   Questions referred

               1.

               In determining whether a food within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1)‘[has] not hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community’ may it be considered significant that shortly before the Regulation entered into force on 15 May 1997 the food was imported into a narrowly defined region of Community territory (in the present case: San Marino) and was available in that locality?

               2.

               For a food not to be considered as novel within the meaning of Article 1(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, does it suffice to determine that all of the ingredients used in its production have hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community?

               3.

               Must Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 be interpreted narrowly such as to exclude from the category ‘foods … consisting of … algae’ foods containing only such algae as have hitherto been used for human consumption within the Community?

               4.

               May a food be considered as ‘having a history of a safe food use’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 if experience regarding its safety only exists in regions outside Europe (in the present case: Japan)?

               5.

               May a food be considered as ‘having a history of a safe food use’ because it is produced using ingredients with a safe history in accordance with a production or processing technique currently in use, if no experience exists as to that combination of ingredients and techniques?

               6.

               Does it follow from Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 which states that ‘[w]here necessary, it may be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 13 whether a type of food or food ingredient falls within the scope of paragraph 2 of this Article’ that in the event of a dispute an undertaking must be regarded as under an obligation to seek that determination and to await the results thereof? May, in addition, any indications be deduced from that provision and from Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 concerning the burden of producing evidence (Darlegungslast) and the substantive burden of proof?

      (1)  OJ L 43, p. 1.


title: Case C-492/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Mediation in civil and commercial matters — Directive 2008/52/EC — National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Italy) — Ciro Di Donna v Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)
   (Case C-492/11) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Mediation in civil and commercial matters - Directive 2008/52/EC - National legislation providing for a compulsory mediation procedure - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ciro Di Donna

      Defendant: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno srl (SIMSA)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3) — National legislation imposing a compulsory attempt at conciliation before judicial proceedings can be brought, such as can affect the initiation, duration and the outcome of proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   There is no need to answer the question referred by the Giudice di pace di Mercato San Severino (Italy) by decision of 21 September 2011 for a preliminary ruling in Case C-492/11.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-321/10: Action brought on 4 August 2010 — SA.PAR. v OHIM — Salini Costruttori (GRUPPO SALINI)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/25

         Action brought on 4 August 2010 — SA.PAR. v OHIM — Salini Costruttori (GRUPPO SALINI)
   (Case T-321/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: SA.PAR. Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bussoletti and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Salini Costruttori SpA (Rome, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2010 on the grounds of breach of Articles 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and of a deficient statement of reasons;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘GRUPPO SALINI’ (registration application No 3 832 161) for services in Classes 36, 37 and 42.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: SALINI COSTRUTTORI SpA.

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Well-known trade mark in Italy, de facto trade mark, domain name and company name of ‘SALINI’ for services in Classes 36, 37 and 42.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division and declaration of nullity of the Community trade mark.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 53(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c), of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, breach of Article 52(1)(b) of that regulation, and deficient statement of reasons.


title: Case C-237/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland)) — Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Obligation to execute the European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping the requested person in detention — Article 15 — Surrender decision — Article 17 — Time-limits and detailed procedure for the decision on execution — Consequences of a failure to observe the time-limits)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland)) — Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan
   (Case C-237/15 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 6 - Right to liberty and security - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Obligation to execute the European arrest warrant - Article 12 - Keeping the requested person in detention - Article 15 - Surrender decision - Article 17 - Time-limits and detailed procedure for the decision on execution - Consequences of a failure to observe the time-limits))
   (2015/C 302/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

      Defendant: Francis Lanigan

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 15(1) and 17 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority remains required to adopt the decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant after expiry of the time-limits stipulated in Article 17.
   Article 12 of that Framework Decision, read in conjunction with Article 17 thereof and in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding, in such a situation, the holding of the requested person in custody, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State, even if the total duration for which that person has been held in custody exceeds those time-limits, provided that that duration is not excessive in the light of the characteristics of the procedure followed in the case in the main proceedings, which is a matter to be ascertained by the national court. If the executing judicial authority decides to bring the requested person’s custody to an end, that authority is required to attach to the provisional release of that person any measures it deems necessary so as to prevent him from absconding and to ensure that the material conditions necessary for his effective surrender remain fulfilled for as long as no final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has been taken.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case C-116/07: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/38

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 23 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-116/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/60)

      Language of the case: Czech

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Action brought on 24 January 1996 by Européenne Automobile SARL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-9/96)

text:
No C 95/ 16           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30 . 3 . 96
in the general assessment in comparison with the previous           that report, which was drawn up without involving all the
two-year period was not reflected in the detailed marking.          parties concerned, as all such investigations, if properly
Accordingly the staff report was drawn up in infringement           conducted, should, contains several inaccuracies from the
of the relevant rules and the principle of sound                    technical point of view. On 21 April 1994 Somagaz
administration and there was a misuse of powers . Further,          unilaterally terminated the contract, despite having used the
the applicant relies on the one hand on infringement of his         bottles in first as well as the second batch .
rights of defence, since he was not given the opportunity of
defending his interests, and, on the other hand, of                 The applicant claims that the Commission's staff have not
infringement of the duty to state reasons, in view of the fact      taken any steps to authorize payment for the goods
that the Secretary-General of the Parliament to whom the            consigned, causing the applicant significant damage, which
applicant appealed, did not give reasons for his negative           is not only economic; Itamsider has had to bear the costs of
decision .                                                          production and dispatch to Mauritania, without being paid,
                                                                    and as a result finds itself in an extremely difficult financial
                                                                    position, to the extent of suffering an action for the
                                                                    commencement of bankruptcy proceedings .
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission's conduct in
                                                                    the matter entails liability on the part of the Community, in
Action brought on 17 January 1996 by Francesco Perillo              accordance with Article 178 and the second paragraph of
  against the Commission of the European Communities                Article 215 of the EC Treaty, and requests that the
                                                                    Commission be ordered to pay him compensation to make
                         ( Case T-7/96 )
                                                                    good the loss he has suffered.
                           ( 96/C 95/32
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Action brought on 24 January 1996 by Europeenne
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Automobile SARL against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January 1996                                      Communities
by Francesco Perillo, residing at Altamura ( Italy ),
represented by Mario Spandre, of the Brussels Bar, with an                                   Case T-9/96 )
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierre                                  ( 96/C 95/33 )
Thielen, 21 Rue de Nassau .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay compensation of ECU                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    1 338 775 , subject to increase or decrease during the          Instance of the European Communities on 24 January 1996
    proceedings,                                                    by Europeenne Automobile SARL, established at
                                                                    Carcassonne ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
— order the defendant to pay interest calculated on the             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
    amounts due as from 14 April 1994,                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                    Beatrix de Bourbon .
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay to it the sum of
                                                                        ECU 200 000 as damages for the Commission's
The applicant, who manufactures gas-bottles under the                   non-contractual liability,
name of Itamsider, states that when tenders were invited
under call No 3605 of the Regional Gas Programme,
financed by the European Development Fund, he secured              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the contract to supply 40 000 empty gas-bottles to Societe
Mauritanienne de Gaz ( Somagaz ). To fulfil its duties under        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract, Itamsider sent the goods to Mauritania in four
batches : 7 007 bottles on 5 October 1993 , 24 381 on              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
1 December 1993 , 6 779 on 7 February 1994 and 1 889 on             intermediary in the distribution of motor vehicles by means
14 February 1994; the goods were stored in the port and             of parallel imports made by it as agent for the final consumer
subsequently removed by Somagaz . Somagaz was critical of           in accordance with the provisions of Commission
the quality of the bottles but without giving much detail . On      Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , criticizes the failure of that
1 March 1994, on the initiative of the Commission's                 institution to respond, first, to the complaint submitted by it
representative in Mauritania , an expert's report on the first     to DG IV on 27 July 1994 criticizing the steps taken by the
batch of bottles was drawn up . The applicant maintains that        PSA Group in relation to the Peugeot concessionaires of its
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 17
foreign subsidiaries with a view to preventing them from             In the alternative, the Court should :
agreeing to sell vehicles to French intermediaries, and,
second, to the request for action which it sent to the               — annul the position adopted by the Commission on
Commission on 27 September 1995 .                                         11 December 1995 in so far as it may be deemed a
                                                                         decision for the purposes of Article 189 of the EC
The applicant pleads that it has been the subject of a judicial          Treaty .
offensive on the part of Auto Cite for alleged unfair                In any event, the Court should :
competition, the ultimate aim of which was to prevent it
from carrying on its business as an agent.                           — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
                                                                         entirety .
According to the applicant, a further stratagem has been
established at national level and employed at local level by         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Peugeot concessionaire with a view to preventing
parallel imports, consisting in private inquiries in the form        The applicant relates that, on 10 March 1993 , it submitted
of affidavits made by process-servers with a view to                 to the Commission a complaint against the French State
obtaining information on Europe Auto's customers and                 concerning the methods of financing and operating the
sources of supply.                                                   French public television broadcasting channels, France 2
                                                                     and France 3 ( France-Television ). That complaint was based
Lastly, according to the applicant, those restrictive practices      on the infringement by the French State of Articles 85 , 90 ( 1 )
are recurring at the level of the Member States, in which            and 92 of the EC Treaty . On 15 July 1995 , after conducting
French agents tend to obtain their supplies, by the exertion         an investigation for more than two years, the Commission
of pressure and the imposition of prohibitions on local              informed the applicant that it had decided to arrange for a
distributors of Peugeot vehicles, on threat of the loss of their     study to be undertaken concerning the general question of
dealership .                                                         the financing of public television broadcasting in the
                                                                     Member States . On 3 October 1995 the applicant sent a
According to the applicant, the Commission's failure to act          letter of formal notice calling upon the Commission to act.
also gives rise to non-contractual liability on its part.            By letter of 11 December 1995 , the Director-General for
                                                                     Competition informed the applicant that, following the
                                                                     results of the study, a letter had been sent to the French
                                                                     authorities and that, depending on the response to that
                                                                     letter, the Commission would be able to adopt a decision as
                                                                     to what action to take with regard to the complaint.
Action brought on 2 February 1996 by Television                      The applicant points out that, despite the letter of formal
Frangaise 1 against the Commission of the European                   notice, the Commission failed to reply — and, accordingly,
                           Communities                               failed to take steps — within the two-month period
                                                                     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 175 of the
                         ( Case T-17/96 )                            EC Treaty and that it had therefore failed to act, within the
                           ( 96/C 95/34 )                            meaning of Article 175 .
                                                                     As regards France-Television 's infringement of Article 85 of
                  (Language of the case: French)                     the Treaty, the Commission was under a duty to send the
                                                                     applicant the communication provided for in Article 6 of
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation No 99/63 , which it failed to do . As regards the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    part of the complaint concerning the infringement of
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1996              Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 of the Treaty, the Commission was
by Television Fran^aise 1 , whose registered office is in Paris,     likewise under a duty not to let matters rest at the
represented by Georges Vandersanden, Jean-Paul Hordies               preliminary stage described in Article 93 ( 3 ), but to initiate
and Agnes Maqua , of the Brussels Bar, with an adress for            the procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ), which it failed to do .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                Alternatively, in the event that the Commission's reply of
                                                                     11 December 1995 is deemed to constitute an express
                                                                     decision in response to the complaint, the applicant argues
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         that that decision should be declared unlawful on the
                                                                     ground that it fails to state that France 2 and France 3
— declare that the Commission, by not adopting a position            infringed, on the one hand, Article 85 and, on the other,
     within two months of the applicant's letter of formal           Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 , and thereby acted contrary to the
     notice of 3 October 1995 , failed to act,                       principle of equal treatment (a breach of the principle of
                                                                     contrary to the principle of equal treatment (a breach of the
— declare that, by thus failing to act, the Commission failed        principle of non-discrimination ) of private and public
     to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                     broadcasting channels, whose task of providing television
                                                                     broadcasting services is in this case the same, and which
— call upon the Commission to act, by adopting a decision            should benefit from identical conditions of competition .
     with regard to the complaint lodged by the applicant on
     10 March 1993 .


title: Action brought on 11 May 1995 by Miguel Anacoreta Correia against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-118/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/31
Action brought on 10 May 1995 by N. Corman SA against                  standardized butter cannot continue without Community
       the Commission of the European Communities                      aid, since its production cost is too high to enable it to find
                         ( Case T-l 17/95 )                            any outlets.
                           ( 95 /C 208/65                              The applicant considers that the defendant institution has
                                                                       breached the principles of legal certainty and the protection
               (Language of the case: French)                          of legitimate expectations, in that it has prevented it, with
                                                                       immediate effect and without any transitional measures,
                                                                       from being able to continue to enjoy the benefit of the
An action against the Commission of the European                       Community rules .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 1995 by                 It also maintains that the contested Regulation contravenes
N. Corman SA, established at Goe-Limbourg ( Belgium ),                 the principle of non-discrimination, in that it does not
represented by Lucette Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with             impose the same restrictive conditions on the granting of aid
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                 for butter for the homeless, which is eligible for Community
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener .                               aid regardless of the raw materials used . The applicant
                                                                       contends that that difference in treatment between butter
                                                                       for the homeless and butter for use in pastry products and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           ice-creams, which did not previously exist, is not objectively
                                                                       justified .
— annul Article 1 (4 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 455/95 ,
                                                                       Lastly, the applicant asserts that the contested rules
                                                                       disregard both the general Community interest and the
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                       principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the new restriction
                                                                       on eligibility for Community aid does not accord with the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    objective pursued by those rules .
The applicant, a public limited liability company
incorporated under Belgian law and the only manufacturer
in the Union engaged mainly and semi-exclusively in the
production of anhydrous milk fat and 'technical butter',               Action brought on 11 May 1995 by Miguel Anacoreta
contests Article 1 ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation No 455/95            Correia against the Commission of the European
amending Regulations ( EEC ) No 1547/87 and ( EEC ) No                                           Communities
1589/87 as regards the buying-in of butter by the
                                                                                ( Case T-118/95 )
intervention agencies and Regulations ( EEC ) No 2191 /81
and ( EEC ) No 570/88 as regards the grant of aid for the                                       ( 95/C 208/66 )
purchase and sale of butter at a reduced price to certain
categories of consumers and industries . The objectives of                             (Language of the case: French)
those rules include, in particular, the sale of butter at
reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and           An action against the Commission of the European
concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of pastry               Communities was brought before the Court of First
products, ice-cream and other food products .                          Instance of the European Communities on 11 May 1995 by
                                                                       Miguel Anacoreta Correia , resident in Brussels, represented
The conditions for obtaining aid laid down by the new rules            by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an
are radically different from the old rules, since, instead of          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire
having to be classed simply as 'inspection-marked butter',             Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener .
the butter now has to be 'produced directly and exclusively
from pasteurized cream ' and must satisfy, 'in the                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
manufacturing Member State, the conditions laid down in
Article 6 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 454/95 and the                — annul the decision of 24 June 1994 rejecting the
requirements of the national quality class listed in Annex II               applicant's candidature for the post ( COM/OOl /94 ) of
to Regulation ( EC ) No 454/95 and the packaging of which is                Deputy Director-General in the Directorate-General for
marked accordingly'.                                                        External Political Relations and annul the appointment
                                                                            to that post of the candidate selected ,
The applicant states that it has discovered a process for
manufacturing butter with a fat content of 82 % , making it            — order the Commission to pay the costs .
possible to obtain a butter which is standardized and stable
and much sought after by customers of the manufacturers of             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
pastry products; it points out that those standardized
products cannot under any circumstances be manufactured                The applicant states that he was a candidate for the post of
solely from fresh cream. The applicant also states that                Deputy Director-General in the Directorate-General for
the commercial and technical realization of the discovery              External Political Relations ( DG l.A ), which was published
has required considerable investment in research                       on 6 January 1994 ( COM/OOl /94 ). On 24 June 1994 he was
and development, such that the manufacture of such                     told that his candidature for the post in question had not
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/32           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
been successful; shortly afterwards he learned that an                The applicant claims that the Court should :
external candidate had been appointed to that post. He
therefore lodged a complaint against the decision rejecting           — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, inasmuch as it does
his candidature, which formed the subject of a decision                   not provide for any award of compensation in respect of
expressly rejecting it.                                                   the suspended proportion of the reference quantity, and ,
                                                                          in addition, award the applicant damages ,
The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities,           — order the defendants to pay the costs .
claiming that the decision rejecting his candidature
contained no statement of reasons . Alternatively, he claims          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that the reasoning set out in the decision rejecting his              In the present proceedings, the applicant is applying for the
complaint is incorrect, since of the two candidates the one           annulment of Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, inasmuch as that
selected was not the one who possessed the qualifications             Regulation provides for the reduction of reference
and abilities necessary for performing the duties of that             quantities, without compensation, in the interests of the
post.                                                                 European milk market; he also claims damages pursuant to
                                                                      Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Furthermore, the applicant points out that he was the only            EC Treaty for the loss suffered by him as a result of the
internal candidate for the post concerned and that the                application of the aforesaid Regulation .
appointing authority should , consequently, have
interviewed him to ascertain, in the light of his                     By virtue of the 24th Order amending the Milch
qualifications, knowledge , abilities and experience, whether         Garantiemengen-Verordnung ( Milk Guarantee Quantities
he met the conditions required to fill the post. Since such an        Order ), which transposes Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92 into
interview never took place, he considers that his candidature         German law, a partial quantity, constituting 4,74 % of the
was not validly assessed under Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff          previous reference quantity, was 'suspended ' with effect
Regulations and that that procedure was not correctly                 from 1 April 1 992 . By contrast with the situation previously
followed with regard to him .                                         prevailing, compensation is now no longer paid . That
                                                                      legislation has the effect of an expropriation measure and is
The applicant also considers that the decision taken by the           incompatible with the basic right to property .
appointing authority not to fill the post at issue using any of
the procedures in Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations, but      Although the Milch-Garantiemengen-Verordnung, which
to follow the exceptional procedure laid down in                      completes Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, makes provision for
Article 29 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations instead , infringed the      the suspension of quantities, and thus for their withdrawal,
latter provision and also Article 45 of the Staff                     it contains no rules regarding compensation . The same
Regulations .                                                         applies as regards the contested Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92 .
                                                                      Consequently, those provisions infringe Article 14 ( 3 ) of the
Lastly, the applicant claims that even before declaring the           Grundgesetz ( German Basic Law); thus they also
post vacant, the Commission had decided to appoint a                  contravene, by virtue of the foregoing, the right to property
certain person to it. The defendant had therefore committed           enshrined in the legal order of the European Communities,
an abuse of procedure and a misuse of powers; on the same             which is safeguarded in accordance with the constitutional
account it had failed to comply with Articles 7 and 27 of the         conceptions common to the Member States .
Staff Regulations, in so far as those provisions establish the
principle of the prohibition of discrimination in the general         The reduction of the reference quantity without any
rules of the Community civil service and in particular in the         corresponding indemnification or compensation is illegal,
rules governing recruitment procedure .                               since it contravenes the right to property and the principle of
                                                                      the protection of legitimate expectations, and is therefore
                                                                      null and void . Because the applicant has been unable, since
                                                                      the definitive suspension on 29 June 1992 of 4,74 % of his
                                                                      previous reference quantity, to supply 11 612 kg of milk
                                                                      included within that quantity, despite having purchased
Action brought on 12 May 1995 by Alfred Hauer against                 reference quantities of that volume for supply at the then
the Council of the European Union and the Commission of               price of DM 1,60/kg, he has suffered a corresponding loss
                  the European Communities                            for which he should be compensated .
                        ( Case T-119/95 )
                          ( 95/C 208/67 )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Action brought on 24 May 1995 by Daniel Chabert against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                                       ( Case T-122/95 )
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             95/C 208/68 )
 Communities on 12 May 19 95 by Alfred Hauer, of
Niederweiler ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented                              (Language of the case: French)
 by Matthias H. Francois, Rechtsanwalt, Bitburg, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 An action against the Commission of the European
 Annie k Wurth .                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case F-81/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/41

         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — ZZ v EASA
   (Case F-81/11)
   2011/C 340/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to re-assign the applicant to a non-managerial post in the interest of the service as a result of an unfavourable evaluation report, as well as an application to pay the applicant an amount by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Executive Director of 17 December 2010 concerning the re-assignment of the applicant to ‘a non-managerial post in the interest of the service’ as a result of an unfavourable management evaluation report;

               —

               Order EASA to pay the applicant an amount fixed ex aequo et bono at EUR 350 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material and professional damage he has suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date at which that amount becomes due;

               —

               Order AESA to pay the costs.


title: Case T-693/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Clover Canyon v EUIPO — Kaipa Sportswear (CLOVER CANYON) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CLOVER CANYON — Earlier national word mark CANYON — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/24

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2016 — Clover Canyon v EUIPO — Kaipa Sportswear (CLOVER CANYON)
      (Case T-693/15) (1)

      ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CLOVER CANYON - Earlier national word mark CANYON - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))
      (2016/C 454/44)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Clover Canyon, Inc. (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: T. Schmitz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Kaipa Sportswear GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: D. Pauli, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2015 (Case R 3018/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Kaipa Sportswear and Clover Canyon.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Clover Canyon, Inc. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case T-32/10: Action brought on 22 January 2010 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — Hachette Filipacchi Press (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/40

         Action brought on 22 January 2010 — Ella Valley Vineyards v OHIM — Hachette Filipacchi Press (ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS)
   (Case T-32/10)
   2010/C 80/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: C. de Haas, lawyer)

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

      Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois-Perret, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November in all its provisions because it infringed Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS pursuant to Articles 87 to 93 of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Ella Valley Vineyards (Adulam) Ltd.

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS’ for goods in Class 33 (Application for registration No 3 360 914).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French word mark and the Community word mark ‘ELLE’ for goods in Class 16 (Community trade mark No 3 475 365).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because the public concerned will not make any link between the marks at issue and because the use of the mark ‘ELLA VALLEY VINEYARDS’ does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier ‘ELLE’ marks