title: Case T-196/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Valéria Anna Gyarmathy against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 March 2015 in Case F-97/13, Gyarmathy/FRA

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/28

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by Valéria Anna Gyarmathy against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 March 2015 in Case F-97/13, Gyarmathy/FRA
   (Case T-196/15 P)
   (2017/C 086/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: A. Cech, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in full the contested judgment and uphold in its entirety the form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant to bear all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging distortion of evidence and substantive inaccuracy in the factual appraisal by the Civil Service Tribunal of the question of the violation of the terms of the vacancy notice.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal, contrary to the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to give adequate reasons for its judgment on the questions arising from the selection process.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to adopt further procedural measures which would have enabled the applicant to substantiate her claim concerning a lack of impartiality, objectivity or independence in the selection process.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by declaring inadmissible the applicant’s plea in law at first instance relating to the filling of the post concerned, on the ground that it was not raised in the pre-litigation procedure.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by declaring inadmissible the applicant’s plea in law at first instance relating to the irregular composition of the selection committee and the breach of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, on the ground that it was not raised in the pre-litigation procedure and was not closely related to the pleas in the complaint (correspondence rule).


title: Case C-318/05: Action brought on 17 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/4

         Action brought on 17 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-318/05)
   (2005/C 257/08)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal and Kilian Gross, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by excluding school fees in respect of education abroad without exception from the tax-deductible special expenses provided for in Article 10(1)(9) of the Einkommensteuergesetzes (EStG) (German Law on income tax), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 39, 43 and 49 EC;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the European Commission, the rule laid down in Article 10(1)(9) of the EStG is incompatible with the freedom to provide services and the rights to freedom of movement provided for in the EC Treaty.
   Under Article 10(1)(9) of the EStG, taxable persons in Germany are able to deduct from their taxable income 30 % of the fees paid to state-approved or recognised private schools as special expenses from the overall amount of their taxable income. It is not possible to deduct tax in respect of school fees paid to private schools established in another Member State.
   The Commission considers that the general exclusion of foreign private schools from that tax reduction is discriminatory. In its view, the tax disadvantage in respect of foreign private schools also infringes the freedom of foreign schools to provide services and the freedom of taxable persons established in Germany who wish to send their children to a foreign private school.
   Foreign private schools are moreover required to set up in Germany if they wish to avoid a competitive disadvantage through the less favourable tax treatment of their customers. That constitutes an inadmissible restriction on freedom of establishment.
   Finally, the restriction on the possibility of deduction tax infringes the right to freedom of movement of citizens from other EU Member States who wish to move to Germany, but who at the same time wish to continue having their children educated in their country of origin. The same applies in respect of German nationals who live in another Member State, but who are still subject to unlimited tax liability in Germany. They too are placed at a disadvantage if they wish to send their children to a private school outside Germany.


title: Case C-675/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-461/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/16

         Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Guccio Gucci SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 October 2016 in Case T-461/15: Guccio Gucci SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-675/16 P)
   (2017/C 144/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Guccio Gucci SpA (represented by: V. Volpi, P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi, N. Parrotta, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office; Guess? IP Holder LP

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings;

               —

               order Guess to pay the costs incurred by the Appellant during these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By means of the present action Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (hereafter referred to as ‘Gucci’ or the ‘Appellant’) requests that the Court of Justice set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Third Chamber), in Case T-461/15 (‘the judgment under appeal’), whereby the General Court dismissed Gucci’s application against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of May 27, 2015, in Case R 2049/2014-44, which had upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division of July 31, 2014, which had dismissed its application for a declaration of invalidity against EUTM Registration No. 5538012, in classes 3, 9, 14, 16. 18, 25 and 35 (the ‘contested mark’) in the name of Guess? IP Holder L.P. (hereafter referred to as ‘Guess’).

               2.

               The present application is aimed at showing that the General Court erred in concluding that the grounds of invalidity set forth in Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 (1) of February 26, 2009 before amendment (hereafter referred to as the ‘CTM Regulation’) do not apply to the contested mark. In particular, the General Court clearly distorted the facts and evidence before it in the assessment of the similarity among the conflicting signs and, as a consequence, wrongly applied both Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation; and failed to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

               3.

               The General Court ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks based on the assumption that the relevant public … will not perceive in [the contested] mark the capital letter ‘G’, represented by the earlier marks, but rather an abstract ornamental motif. Moreover, having regard to the stylisation of the sign and to the fact that its elements are interlocking or joined together, it could be perceived both as reproducing stylised letters, such as the capital letter ‘X’ or the letter ‘e’ and as a combination of figures and letters, such as the figure ‘3’ and the letter ‘e’ (see, to that effect, paragraph 30 of the judgment under appeal). This assumption is the crucial point of the judgment under appeal, having led the General Court to rule out any similarity among the conflicting marks and, consequently, the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTM Regulation to the case at issue.

               4.

               However, the above assumption is manifestly wrong. This appears obvious from the documents filed in the case which clearly show that the relevant public does perceive the capital letters ‘G’ in the contested mark, as per the results of a survey pool on the public perception of the contested mark submitted by Gucci. This obvious distortion of the facts and evidence affected the General Court’s assessment of Gucci’s application: had the General Court acknowledged that the relevant public — or at least a portion of said public — would perceive the contested mark as a combination of capital letters ‘G’, it could have not ruled out the similarity among the conflicting marks and therefore the applicability of both Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) CTM Regulation.

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


title: Case C-182/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Level of attention of the relevant public — Independent distinctive role — Dominance — Criteria for assessing visual similarity — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA
   (Case C-182/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘STICK MiniMINI Beretta’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the EU word mark Mini Wini - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Level of attention of the relevant public - Independent distinctive role - Dominance - Criteria for assessing visual similarity - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 309/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent), Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA (represented by G. Ghisletti, F. Braga and P. Pozzi, avvocati)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-323/13: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL — Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/42

         Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Pure Fishing v EUIPO — Łabowicz (NANOFIL)
   (Case T-323/13) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NANOFIL - Invalidity of the earlier EU figurative mark NANO - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 144/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pure Fishing (Spirit Lake, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2013 (Case R 1241/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Łabowicz and Pure Fishing.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-372/11 P: Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Power-One Italy SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Project co-funded by the financial instrument ‘LIFE’ — Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony ( ‘Pneuma project’ ) — Commission decision to end the project and to recover the advance paid — Compensation for the loss allegedly sustained)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/19

         Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Power-One Italy SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-372/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Project co-funded by the financial instrument ‘LIFE’ - Development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony (‘Pneuma project’) - Commission decision to end the project and to recover the advance paid - Compensation for the loss allegedly sustained)
   2012/C 366/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Power-One Italy SpA (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Giussani, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-489/08 Power-One Italy v Commission by which that court dismissed an action for compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the appellant following the Commission’s decision to end the Pneuma project (LIFE04 ENV/IT/000595) intended to co-fund development of a new system of supplying power for use in mobile telephony — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Power-One Italy SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.09.2011.


               19.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 41/32

         Action brought on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-2/09)
   (2009/C 41/10)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

                  by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 66s of Chapter VI of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 of 31 May 2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA;

               and

               2.

                  the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               the present case concerns an EC regulation on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency,

               —

               Article 7 of the EEA Agreement states that:

                  ‘Acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of their internal legal order as follows:

                           (a)

                              an act corresponding to an EEC regulation shall as such be made part of the internal legal order of the Contracting Parties;

                           (b)

                              an act corresponding to an EEC directive shall leave to the authorities of the Contracting Parties the choice of form and method of implementation.’,

               —

               the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has failed to make the regulation part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-245/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-245/13)
   2013/C 215/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Wiesbaden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Holger Priestoph, Matteo Antonio Priestoph, Pia Antonia Priestoph

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Question referred

   Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG, in the securities account of the applicants, and in respect of which the applicants had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicants — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


title: Case T-125/11: Action brought on 28 February 2011 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/31

         Action brought on 28 February 2011 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-125/11)
   2011/C 145/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 17 December 2010 in so far as it relates to the set-off of the debt owed by the Community to CNRS, arising from the PIEF Contract, and the Community’s alleged claim on the CNRS under the ALLOSTEM Contract;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence and in particular of Article 12(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002, (1) in so far as the Commission failed to obtain the observations of the applicant on the merits of its decision to set-off the alleged debt.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons for a decision, since the Commission merely referred to the general findings in its audit report of 16 March 2009 without explaining the reasons why it did not take account of the evidence adduced by the applicant in order to establish the eligibility of the costs declared by it.

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging manifest errors of assessment, as the Commission took the view that the remuneration of Ms. T., a researcher at CNRS from 1 April 2006 until 31 March 2007 was not covered by eligible costs, despite evidence adduced by the applicant in the form of time sheets and four scientific articles referring to the contract concerned.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging errors of law committed, in so far as the Commission has denied that Ms T.’s time sheets for the period 1 April 2006 until 31 March 2007 have any probative value and has not recognised the eligibility of the remuneration of Ms B., a researcher at CNRS, during her maternity leave and second, the social charge called‘provision for loss of employment’ paid as unemployment insurance for its non-established members of staff.

               5.

               Fifth plea alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as the Commission:

                           —

                           contrary to what it stated in its audit report, denied the probative value of four scientific publications;

                           —

                           gave new interpretations to the criteria for the eligibility of costs relating to maternity leave;

                           —

                           notified the decision in spite of assurances given during the process seeking an amicable settlement of the dispute.

               6.

               Sixth plea alleging infringement of Article 73(1) of the Financial Regulation, (2) in so far as the debt claimed by the Commission is not certain.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 2321/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in, and for the dissemination of research results for, the implementation of the European Community Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) (OJ 2002 L 335, p. 23).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


title: Case F-66/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — Molina Solano v Europol (Staff cases — Europol Staff — Europol Convention — Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Decision 2009/371/JHA — Application of the CEOS to Europol agents — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff — Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Molina Solano v Europol
   (Case F-66/13) (1)

   ((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))
   2014/C 253/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by J. Arnould and D. Neumann, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 21/09/2013, p. 30.


title: Case T-543/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014  — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/21

         Action brought on 22 July 2014 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)
   (Case T-543/14)
   2014/C 339/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 May 2014 in Case R 1859/2013-2 concerning the international trade mark in the European Union No 0962191 and to alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the application for a declaration of invalidity is granted;

               —

               Order the defendant and, where appropriate, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration of the word mark ‘HOT SOX’ — International registration No 9 62  191

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Renfro Corp.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: provima Warenhandels GmbH

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 158 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 158 in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-161/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Group Lottuss Corp v OHIM — Ugly (COYOTE UGLY) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for the figurative Community mark COYOTE UGLY — Earlier Community word mark COYOTE UGLY — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 November 2008 — Group Lottuss Corp v OHIM — Ugly (COYOTE UGLY)
   (Case T-161/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the figurative Community mark COYOTE UGLY - Earlier Community word mark COYOTE UGLY - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 327/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and J. Arribas García, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ugly, Inc. (Cornwall, New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, barrister, M. Blair and C. Balme, solicitors)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2007 (Joined Cases R 165/2006-2 and R 194/2006-2) concerning an opposition procedure between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp., SL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Group Lottuss Corp., SL to bear all its own costs, to pay four fifths of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market(Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) and to pay four fifths of the costs of Ugly Inc.;

               3.

               orders Ugly Inc. to bear one fifth of its own costs and to pay one fifth of OHIM's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 7.7.2007.


title: Case C-515/10: Action brought on 29 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/17

         Action brought on 29 October 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-515/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that asbestos-cement waste is treated in suitable landfills, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(e), the first subparagraph of Article 3 and Article 6(d) of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1) and the provisions of Council Decision of 19 December 2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC (2);

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission relies on a single plea in law in support of its action alleging an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of Directive 1999/31/EC and, in particular, of the definition of ‘waste’.
   The applicant disputes the interpretation of the French authorities according to which the waste can be both inert waste and hazardous waste at the same time. According to the Commission, the directive recognises on the contrary the existence of three different categories of waste, ‘hazardous’, ‘non-hazardous’ and ‘inert’, resulting in different obligations and a precise distinction in the conditions of acceptance of different waste to landfill. Thus, asbestos-cement waste should be considered to be ‘hazardous waste’ in accordance with the list of wastes established by Decision 2000/532/EC (3), as amended by Decision 2001/573/EC (4), and the particular precautions necessary for the disposal thereof. The national legislation classifying asbestos-cement waste as inert and authorising its acceptance in a landfill for inert waste therefore does not comply with the requirements of the directive.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 11, p. 27.

      (3)  Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste (OJ 2000 L 226, p. 3).

      (4)  Council Decision of 23 July 2001 amending Commission Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes (OJ 2001 L 203, p. 18).


title: Case T-130/08: Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Gres La Sagra v OHIM — Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/29

         Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Gres La Sagra v OHIM — Ceramicalcora (VENATTO MARBLE STONE)
   (Case T-130/08)
   (2008/C 116/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Gres La Sagra, SL (Alameda de la Sagra, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, lawyer, and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ceramicalcora, SA (Alcora, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 January 2008 in Case R-1609/2006-4;

               —

               As a consequence of that annulment, grant trade mark application 3109006, not only for the services in Class 39 (already granted upon the dismissal of the opposition B690695 as regards those services, which has now become res judicata), but also for the remaining goods and services covered by the application in Classes 19, 21 and 40, and

               —

               Order OHIM, and the other parties before the Court, to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested, and reject the claims of OHIM and the other parties before the Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gres La Sagra, SL.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘VENATTO (marble stone)’ (Application No 3 109 066) for goods and services in Classes 19, 21, 39 and 40.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CERAMICALCORA, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark for the sign ‘VENETO (céramicas)’ (No 2 115 543; 2 056 688; 2 056 689 and 2 056 699) for goods and services in Classes 27, 19, 21 and 39 respectively.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part. The Opposition Division held that there was a likelihood of confusion in the relevant territory for the goods and services at issue in Classes 19, 21 and 40, but that there was no such likelihood of confusion in relation to those services at issue in Class 39.

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

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-767/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn v CPVO — Artevos (Oksana) (New varieties of plants — Community plant variety rights — Application for a Community plant variety right for the pear variety Oksana — Objections — Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 — Novelty of the candidate variety — Lack of evidence)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn v CPVO — Artevos (Oksana)
   (Case T-767/14) (1)

   ((New varieties of plants - Community plant variety rights - Application for a Community plant variety right for the pear variety Oksana - Objections - Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Novelty of the candidate variety - Lack of evidence))
   (2017/C 283/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Jonker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: F. Mattina, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO, intervening before the General Court: Artevos GmbH (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, W.R. Kunze, lawyers, and B. Schnell, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO: Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt eV (Bielefeld, Germany)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 2 July 2014 (Case A 007/2013) concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right in respect of pears of the Oksana variety.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-228/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2007 — Jörn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2007 — Jörn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich
   (Case C-228/07)
   (2007/C 170/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jörn Petersen

      Defendant: Arbeitsmarktservice Niederösterreich
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a monetary unemployment benefit granted to unemployed persons who have applied for the grant of a benefit under the statutory pension and accident insurance scheme on the ground of reduced capacity to work or incapacity to work until a decision is made on their application which is an advance payment of such benefit and is to be subsequently set off against such benefit, and which, although subject to the conditions that the person is unemployed and has completed a minimum eligibility period, is not subject to the other requirements for the payment of unemployment benefit, namely capacity to work, willingness to work and readiness to work, and which is paid only if, having regard to the circumstances, it is likely that benefits will be granted under the statutory pension and accident insurance scheme, an unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, or an invalidity benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(b) of that Regulation?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is to the effect that the benefit referred to is an unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71: Does Article 39 EC preclude a national provision which provides that — apart from a discretion available on application by the unemployed person in cases of exceptional circumstances for up to three months — the claim to the benefit is suspended if the unemployed person lives abroad (in another Member State)?

      (1)  OJ L 149, p. 2.


title: Case C-509/08: Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/18

         Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-509/08)
   (2009/C 32/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Sénéchal and I. Hadjiyiannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC (1), and in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2004/108/EC expired on 20 January 2007. At the date the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary implementing measures or, in any event, it had not yet communicated them to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 390, p. 24.


title: Case T-478/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER — Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-478/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 232/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1009/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1009/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-20/07: Action brought on 23 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/23

         Action brought on 23 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-20/07)
   (2007/C 56/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 3 of that Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs of this Application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 20 May 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 146, p.1.


title: Case T-560/11: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2012 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2012 — Kronofrance and Kronoply v Commission
   (Case T-560/11) (1)

   2013/C 32/44
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-394/08: Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/52

         Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission
   (Case T-394/08)
   (2008/C 285/93)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Regione autonoma della Sardegna (represented by: A. Fantozzi, P. Carrozza and G. Mameli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 3 July 2008 (State aid C1/2004 Italy — SG-Greffe (208) D/204339) concerning the aid scheme ‘Regional Law No 9 of 1998 — Misapplication of aid N 272/98’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Law No 9 of 11 March 1998 of the Region of Sardinia provided for credit incentives for the reclassification and adaptation of the hotel industry. The aid scheme thus set up was approved by the Commission. In spite of that, on 3 July 2008 the defendant communicated the contested decision in the present case to the Italian Government. According to that decision, in the aid scheme in question investment inducements were granted in respect of which no application for aid had been submitted before work was started on the project, in breach of the Guidelines on national regional aid (1).
   In support of its claims the applicant pleads infringement of essential procedural requirements on account of inconsistent reasons, the alleged irrelevance of the award in the assessment of the ‘incentive effect’ on the beneficiaries and therefore in the assessment of the requirement of the ‘necessity of the aid’.
   In particular it is considered in that regard that a correct assessment of the beneficiaries' award ought, in fact, to have led the Commission to give due weight to the fact that:

               —

               the aid scheme in question was the ideal continuation of a current lawful scheme in which the grant of aid took place regardless of the assessment as to whether or not the investments had been started;

               —

               the aid scheme in question was adopted by a regional law approved without any actual likelihood that the Guidelines on national regional aid could influence the legislative procedure, inasmuch as the same was approved only one day after the publication of those Guidelines in the Official Journal;

               —

               the beneficiary undertakings set up operations precisely in reliance on the aid measures, which therefore absolutely had an incentive effect.

         The Commission errs, therefore, in seeking to assess the incentive effect of the aid by taking as a basis the unproven assumption that the beneficiary, given that it had not submitted the application prior to starting, had made the investment regardless of the aid.
   The incorrectness of the Commission's assessment is made clear by the fact that it is impossible to argue that Regional Law 9/1998 is compatible from the outset with the Guidelines of 1998 cited above.
   The defendant also errs in basing its assessment on a requirement which is not procedural but ‘substantive’, that of compatibility of the aid on a presumption of absence of the incentive effect where there was no application prior to the investment, laid down for the first time with reference to the national regional aid of the ‘Guidelines’, and therefore not known and not capable of being known in advance.
   In addition, the defendant's assessment appears to infringe Article 88 of the Treaty and Regulation No 659/99/EC, in so far as the reasons for which the aid in question is described as unlawful rather than misuse of aid is completely omitted from the contested decision, when the description of the measure as misuse of aid excludes, in principle, the possibility of recovery.

      (1)  OJ C 74 of 10.3.1998, p. 9.


title: Case C-459/03: Action brought on 30 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 7/24                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
Action brought on 30 October 2003 by the Commission                       Industry) of 24 October 2003, received at the Court Registry
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       on 4 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van
                         (Case C-459/03)                                  Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following
                                                                          questions:
                          (2004/C 7/39)
                                                                          1.    Is a court or tribunal as referred to in the third paragraph
                                                                                of Article 234 EC also required under that provision to
                                                                                submit to the Court of Justice a question such as that set
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       out below, concerning the validity of provisions of a
Justice of the European Communities on 30 October 2003 by                       regulation where the Court of Justice has ruled that
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                         analogous provisions of another, comparable regulation
by P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, acting as agents, with an                    are invalid, or may it refrain from applying the first-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                              mentioned provisions in view of the clear analogies
                                                                                between them and the provisions declared invalid?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          2.    Are Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
—     declare that, by instituting dispute settlement proceedings               No 1423/95 (1) of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed
      against the United Kingdom under the UN Convention                        implementing rules for the import of products in the
      for the Law of the Sea concerning the MOX Plant located                   sugar sector other than molasses invalid inasmuch as
      at Sellafield, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations               they provide that the additional duty referred to therein
      under Article 10 and 292 EC and Article 192 and 193                       is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the
      Euratom;                                                                  representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regu-
                                                                                lation (EC) No 1423/95 and that that duty is established
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
                                                                                concerned only if the importer so requests?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying
                                                                              down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in
The Commission submits that Ireland has instituted the                        the sugar sector other than molasses (OJ L 141 of 24.06.1995,
                                                                              p. 16).
proceedings against the United Kingdom without taking due
account of the fact that the European Community is a party to
the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It has
further failed to appreciate that the provisions of UNCLOS
invoked by it, as well as a number of other Community acts
invoked by Ireland, are provisions of Community law. By
submitting the dispute to a Tribunal outside the Community
legal order, Ireland has violated the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Justice enshrined in Articles 292 EC and 193                 Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Kingdom of
Euratom. Furthermore, Ireland has also violated the duty of               Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
cooperation incumbent on it under Articles 10 EC and 192                                                  ties
Euratom.
                                                                                (Case C-464/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/41)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of
24 October 2003 in the case of Gaston Schul Douane-                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van Landbouw,                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                  Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit                              Communities on 4 November 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                          represented by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-461/03)
                          (2004/C 7/40)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003 (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          12 August 2003 laying down implementing rules on the
European Communities by order of the College van Beroep                         Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                      Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; and


title: Case T-164/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Calberson GE v Commission (Arbitration clause — Programme to supply agricultural products to Russia — Supply of beef — Non-performance of the contract by the intervention agency — Applicable law — Limitation — Late release of certain supply securities — Partial payment of a transport invoice — Underpayment in foreign currency of certain invoices — Default interest)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Calberson GE v Commission
   (Case T-164/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Programme to supply agricultural products to Russia - Supply of beef - Non-performance of the contract by the intervention agency - Applicable law - Limitation - Late release of certain supply securities - Partial payment of a transport invoice - Underpayment in foreign currency of certain invoices - Default interest))
   (2016/C 111/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Calberson GE (Villeneuve-Garenne, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 272 TFEU for an order requiring the Commission to compensate the applicant for the loss which it claims to have suffered following acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the intervention agency in the performance of a contract relating to the transport of beef to Russia in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 of 16 August 1999 on the supply of beef to Russia (OJ 1999 L 217, p. 20).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Calberson GE to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case T-515/15: Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/33

         Action brought on 1 September 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Council
   (Case T-515/15)
   (2015/C 371/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Stumpf and A. Haak, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50), insofar as the contested decision applies to the applicant, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision infringes the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, namely the respect of the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to establish evidence that the applicant is involved in the destabilisation of Ukraine or has any influence regarding the successful implementation of the Minsk Agreements.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measure were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that in consequence of the annulment of Council Decision 2015/971/CFSP, Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 lacks a sufficient legal basis which means that the listing of the applicant in Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 by virtue of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014 will no longer have any effect.


title: Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-11/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 95/5
         material time, the increase in that credit line was                 Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the
         consistent with the conduct of private investor in                  restrictions on the use of cable television networks for
         HSW acting on market economy principles, who had                    the provision of already liberalized telecommunications
         to   consider   that   his   substantial  loan   to  this           services ( 1 ),
         undertaking in liquidation would be regarded as
         replacing equity capital . In particular, the extent of       — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
         the commitment to the company which was the
         predecessor of the new one is completely unsuited for         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         use as a yardstick for assessing the nature as aid of the
         increase in the credit line granted in 1992 . A private       — lack of competence of the Commission : the Commission
         investor assesses whether in a crisis he should realize             is not specifying obligations already in existence under
         a large loss by terminating a large commitment or                   Article 90 ( 1 ), rather it is a new obligation to liberalize
         buy himself, by making a further limited capital                    the market outwith the relevant legislation in existence
         injection, a realistic prospect of avoiding or reducing             at that time, in turn giving rise to areas as yet unregulated
         his loss, still in the light of the circumstances at                which seriously affects the universal provision of
         the time . It always turns on which decision is the                 services, which may only be supervised by means of the
         most reasonable one commercially in the actual                      proper exercise of the Community's legislative power,
         circumstances . There is, however, no commercial                    that is, by means of the system of harmonization, which
         law which states that a successor company founded                   is a matter solely for the Council and the European
         to avoid the liquidation of a company should                        Parliament both under the Treaty ( specifically
         invariably be financed only to the extent to which the              Articles 87 and 100a of the EC Treaty ) and under
         company which became insolvent was financed,                        the resolutions adopted in this sphere . This is an
                                                                             encroachment of powers which may in no way be
    — the Commission further wrongly assumes that the                        considered to be sanctioned by Article 90 ( 3 ) or the
         extension and increase of the credit line in December               case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting it,
         1993 constitutes an aid : the measure is based on a
         recommendation of an independent firm of business             — misuse           of   powers :     by      imposing   the  direct
         consultants and had the aim of supporting HSW by                    interconnection of cable television networks, the
         means of a further, relatively small increase in the                Commission is in fact implementing a harmonization
         credit line until the business was sold and hence of                measure in breach of the principles of interinstitutional
         substantially reducing the losses feared in the event               balance enshrined in the Treaty and in the case-law.
         of   the  termination      of  the  commitment .    The
         subsequent actual sale shows that the overall loss            f 1 ) OJ No L 256 , 26 . 10 . 1995 , p . 49 .
         resulting from the privatization was markedly less
         than it would have been had the commitment been
         terminated in December 1993 .
— In the alternative : incorrect calculation of the amount of
    the aid .
                                                                       Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Portuguese
                                                                       Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                Case C-12/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/09 )
Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Kingdom                       An action against the Commission of the European
of Spain against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                           Communities
                                                                       the European Communities on 18 January 1996 by the
                          Case C-ll /96 )                              Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Paulo de Pitta e
                           ( 96/C 95/08 )                              Cunha, Dr Nuno Ruiz and Dr Luis Fernandes, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18 January 1996 by the                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Gloria Calvo Diaz,
                                                                       — annul Article 1 ( 2 ) and Article 2 of Commission
Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4 and 6 Boulevard                         Directive 95/5 1 /EC of 18 October 1995 amending
E. Servais .                                                                 Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the
                                                                             restrictions on the use of cable television networks for
                                                                             the provision of already liberalized telecommunications
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 services (');
— annul the second indent of Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission             — order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
    Directive 95/5 1 /EC of 18 October 19 95 amending                        proceedings .


title: Case T-218/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Dagher v Council

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/19

         Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Dagher v Council
   (Case T-218/11)
   2011/C 179/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Habib Roland Dagher (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J.-Y. Dupeux and F. Dressen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, in so far as that act relates to him;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as that act relates to him;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 40 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss and other damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the entirety of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea divided into three parts and alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

               —

               By the first part of the plea, the applicant argues that the procedure followed by the Council was not of an adversarial nature, in so far as the Council failed to provide, as soon as possible after the publication of the contested measures, information permitting the applicant to understand the reasons for the measures taken in his regard and, later refused the applicant’s subsequent requests for information, which meant that the applicant was deprived of his right to exercise usefully any action of an administrative nature seeking to have those measures lifted;

               —

               By the second part of the plea, the applicant alleges failure to state reasons, since the grounds set out in the restrictive measures taken against him are unclear and brief, which prevents him from examining the substance of the complaints underlying the sanctions in question;

               —

               By the third part of the plea, the applicant claims an infringement of the right to effective judicial protection.


title: Case T-454/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014  — Warimex v OHIM (STONE)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/49

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Warimex v OHIM (STONE)
   (Case T-454/14)
   2014/C 292/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Warimex Waren-Import-Export Handels GmbH (Neuried, Germany) (represented by E. Keller and J. Voogd, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2014 in Case R 1599/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘STONE’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 4 64  005

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-296/02: Action brought on 20 August 2002 by the Republic of Austria against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 233/19
Action brought on 20 August 2002 by the Republic                        The ecopoint system under Protocol No 9 to the 1994 Act of
of Austria against the Commission of the European                       Accession is based on the principle of declarations. Accord-
                           Communities                                  ingly, if journeys are clearly declared by a driver as transit
                                                                        journeys, they are included within the ecopoint statistics and
                                                                        are relevant to the question whether the 108 % threshold has
                         (Case C-296/02)                                been exceeded, whereupon the Commission is bound under
                                                                        Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9, in conjunction with para-
                                                                        graph 3 of Annex 5 thereto, to adopt appropriate measures,
                         (2002/C 233/30)                                namely to reduce the number of ecopoints for the following
                                                                        year in accordance with a calculation method laid down in the
                                                                        Annex to the Protocol. It cannot, in the light of the principle
                                                                        of declarations, be for the Republic of Austria, either legally or
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               factually, to provide evidence in each individual case that,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European            where a journey is clearly declared to be a transit journey, such
Communities on 20 August 2002 by the Republic of Austria,               a transit journey actually took place. The Republic of Austria
represented by Dr Harald Dossi of the Constitutional Service            merely has to deduct journeys declared to be transit journeys
of the Federal Chancellor’s Office of the Republic of Austria,          where it is beyond doubt that, despite a clear declaration, there
with an address for service in Luxembourg care of the                   cannot have been a transit journey. It clearly follows, therefore,
Ambassador, Dr Christian Strohal, Austrian Embassy, 3 rue               that the 108 % threshold was exceeded in 2001. In the light of
des Bains.                                                              its decision of 24 July 2002, the Commission consequently
                                                                        failed to fulfil its obligations under Protocol 9 to the 1994 Act
                                                                        of Accession, in particular its obligations under Article 11(2)(c)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             in conjunction with Article 16 and paragraph 3 of Annex 5 to
                                                                        that Protocol, thereby creating grounds for annulment on
                                                                        account of infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol
—     annul the negative opinion of the Commission of 24 July           No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession pursuant to the second
      2002 definitively refusing the request for action submit-         paragraph of Article 230 EC.
      ted to the Commission by the Republic of Austria under
      the second paragraph of Article 232 EC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            (In the alternative)
In the alternative, the Republic of Austria claims that the Court       Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol No 9 to the
                                                                        1994 Act of Accession. In relation to the grounds, the
should:
                                                                        applicant refers to its arguments regarding the first plea in law.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 24 July 2002
      ordering the non-application of Article 11(2)(c) of Proto-        (1 ) Protocol No 9 on road, rail and combined transport in Austria.
      col No 9 to the 1994 Act of Accession ( 1) and the full
      award of ecopoints for the year 2002;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-357/99 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/31)
(Main application)
Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or of Protocol No 9 to the
1994 Act of Accession by definitively refusing the request              By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of
made under the second paragraph of Article 232 EC. The                  the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Commission wrongly seeks to deduct from the number of                   register of Case C-357/99: Italian Republic v Council of the
transit journeys declared overall for the year 2001 (1 640 416)         European Union.
journeys declared as transit journeys in respect of which there
is no information on departure (91 250), journeys declared as
transit journeys where both entry and departure were effected           (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
at the same border point (49 504) and those where both entry
and departure were effected in the same Member State (11 374)
and journeys involving ‘piggyback transportation’ (10 764).


title: Case T-380/11: Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission (Application for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff heading — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/23

         Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission
   (Case T-380/11) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 313/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Politika, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Keppenne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


C 327/34           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                             24.10.98
      Removal from the register of Case T-71/98 (1)             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                     (98/C 327/58)                              Case T-71/98: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the
                                                                European Communities.
             (Language of the case: French)
By order of 3 September 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European          (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 January 1999 in Case C-245/95 P-INT: NSK Ltd and Others, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities and others (Appeal - Dumping - Ball bearings originating in Japan - Interpretation)

text:
C 71/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including those
                                                                        relating to the intervention by NSK Ltd, NSK Bearings
                     of 19 January 1999
                                                                        Europe Ltd, NSK-RHP France SA, NSK-RHP UK
in Case C-245/95 P-INT: NSK Ltd and Others, the other                   Ltd, NSK-RHP Deutschland GmbH, NSK-RHP Italia
parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the                     SpA, NSK-RHP Nederland BV, NSK-RHP European
            European Communities and others (1)                         Distribution Centre BV and NSK-RHP Iberica SA.
(Appeal Ð Dumping Ð Ball bearings originating in Japan
                      Ð Interpretation)
                                                                    2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of this
                       (1999/C 71/02)                                   application.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    3. The original of this judgment shall be appended to the
                                                                        original of the judgment interpreted. This judgment
In Case C-245/95 P-INT: NSK Ltd, a company                              shall be mentioned in the margin of the original of the
incorporated under Japanese law, whose registered office                judgment interpreted.
is in Tokyo (Japan), and eight of its European subsidiaries,
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd, a company incorporated under
                                                                    (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
English law, whose registered office is in London,                      OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
NSK-RHP France SA, a company incorporated under
French law, whose registered office is in Guyancourt
(France), NSK-RHP UK Ltd, a company incorporated
under English law, whose registered office is in
Ruddington (United Kingdom), NSK-RHP Deutschland
GmbH, a company incorporated under German law,
whose registered office is in Ratingen (Germany),
NSK-RHP Italia SpA, a company incorporated under                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
Italian law, whose registered office is in Milan (Italy),
NSK-RHP Nederland BV, a company incorporated under                                        (Fourth Chamber)
Netherlands law, whose registered office is in Amstelveen
(Netherlands), NSK-RHP European Distribution Centre                                     of 12 November 1998
BV, a company incorporated under Netherlands law,                   in Case C-194/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
whose registered office is in Amstelveen (Netherlands),             the Oberlandesgericht Köln): Generalstaatsanwaltschaft v
and NSK-RHP Iberica SA, a company incorporated under                                     Eckard Pörschke (1)
Spanish law, whose registered office is in Barcelona
(Spain), all represented by David Vaughan QC, instructed            (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded
by Robin Griffith, Solicitor, 200 Aldersgate Street, London         between certain Member States and Article 8 of Directive
EC1A 4JJ Ð application for interpretation of the second                   93/89/EEC Ð Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
point of the operative part of the judgment of 10 February
1998 in Case C-245/95 P Commission v NTN and Koyo                                           (1999/C 71/03)
Seiko [1998] ECR I-401, the other parties to the
proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan),
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
NTN Corporation, a company incorporated under
Japanese law, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan),
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd, a company incorporated under
Japanese law, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan),          In Case C-194/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
Council of the European Union, and Federation of                    of the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Köln
European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations, whose                 (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
registered office is in Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany) Ð               pending before that court between Generalstaatsanwalt-
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                   schaft and Eckard Pörschke on the interpretation of
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and        Article 8(1) of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 on the
P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.             commercial vehicles, concluded between the Governments
Edward, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.                  of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of
Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; R. Grass,            Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 January 1999, in              Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
which it declares:                                                  (Bundesgesetzblatt 1994, Part II, p. 1768) Ð the Court
                                                                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and
1. Point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of                 H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     10 February 1998, Commission v NTN and Koyo                    Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
     Seiko (C-245/95 P), is to be interpreted to the effect         on 12 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
     that the Commission of the European Communities is             follows:


title: Case C-265/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Chemicals — Registration, evaluation, authorisation of those substances and restrictions applicable to them — REACH Regulation — Article 126 — System of penalties in the event of infringement of the provisions of the REACH Regulation — Lack of implementation within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-265/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Chemicals - Registration, evaluation, authorisation of those substances and restrictions applicable to them - REACH Regulation - Article 126 - System of penalties in the event of infringement of the provisions of the REACH Regulation - Lack of implementation within the period prescribed)
   2011/C 186/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 126 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p.1) — Penalties applicable for infringement of the REACH Regulation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the penalties applicable to infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 126 of that regulation;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-433/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava, Diputación Foral de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava, Diputación Foral de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   (Case C-433/06)
   (2006/C 326/67)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León

      Defendant: Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava, Diputación Foral de Álava, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   Question referred
   Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for a deduction from the amount of tax payable which does not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava amending Articles 29(1)(a) and 37 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?


title: Case T-3/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Andalucia (Spain) — Partial withdrawal of financial assistance — Public works and services contracts — Award criteria — Publicity — Eligibility of expenditure — Determination of the financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Proportionality)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-3/07) (1)

   (Cohesion fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Environmental infrastructure projects under way in the territory of Andalucia (Spain) - Partial withdrawal of financial assistance - Public works and services contracts - Award criteria - Publicity - Eligibility of expenditure - Determination of the financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Proportionality)
   2013/C 325/32
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, then A. Rubio González, lawyers in the State legal service)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Steiblytė and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents, and by M. Canal Fontcuberta, lawyer, then A. Steiblytė and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5103 of 20 October 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund for five projects being undertaken in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia (Spain).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 2 to 6 Commission Decision C(2006) 5103 of 20 October 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund for five projects being undertaken in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia (Spain) in so far as they include an amount of EUR 476 460 by way of financial corrections concerning the projects bearing the references 2000.ES.16.C.PE.004, 2000.ES.16.C.PE.025, 2000.ES.16.C.PE.066 et 2000.ES.16.C.PE.0138;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-86/07: Order of the President of the Court of 4 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-86/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/64)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-81/11 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/14

         Appeal brought on 22 February 2011 by Longevity Health Products, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-363/09: Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA
   (Case C-81/11 P)
   2011/C 139/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Gruppo Lepetit SpA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit the appeal filed by the company Longevity Health Products, Inc.

               —

               annul the decision of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in case T-363/09

               —

               order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court violated its right to due process of law by failing to grant a time period for the appellant to reply to the submissions of OHIM.
   It is also submitted that the General Court did not deal with the arguments advanced by the holder of the trademark concerning the likelihood of confusion.