title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova by order of that court of 19 April 1995 in the case of Livia Balestra v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Case C-139/95)

text:
8 . 7 . 95                I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                              No C 174/5
             be identified to the competent authority the names                      ( ii ) If they are to be applied by the national
             and addresses of any and all manufacturers of a                                    court, by reference to what criteria and
             particular substance ('the Substance ') from whom                                  considerations must the proportionality of the
             the applicant intends to purchase quantities of the                                requests and requirements be assessed ?
             Substance for use in the manufacture by the
             applicant of one of the active ingredients ('the
             Active Ingredient') of the Product, and to supply or         5 . Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
             arrange to be supplied to the competent authority                as prohibiting requests and requirements such as those
             details of the site(s ) where the Substance would be             described above, or any of them ?
             manufactured and of the manufacturing processes
             and control testing procedures used by the                   6 . ( a ) Is Article 40 of Directive 81 /851 /EEC to be
             manufacturer of the Substance ;
                                                                                interpreted as applying to the requests and
                                                                                requirements described above ?
     ( b ) to require an applicant for a marketing
             authorization to submit to the competent authority
              for approval the results of such control tests as are           ( b ) If so, in what circumstances and by reference to
              required to be carried out upon each batch of the                      what criteria are the reasons for the imposition of
              Substance purchased by the applicant, and not to                       such requests, and requirements to be treated as
             release any batch of the Product until such approval                    inadequate for the purposes of Article 40 , and were
              has been given in respect of the relevant batch of the                 such requests and requirements adequately
              Substance;                                                             reasoned in the present case ?
      ( c ) to require the applicant ( whether by specific licence        7. ( a ) Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community
             conditions or by withholding grant of a marketing                       law to compensate an undertaking in damages for
              authorization or otherwise ) either to comply with                     loss which it has suffered as a consequence of the
              one or both of the above requirements or to market                     imposition of requests and requirements such as
              the Product only where it has been prepared using                      those described above which :
              supplies of the Active Ingredient purchased from a
              specified third party rather than manufactured by
              the applicant itself;                                                       ( I ) are incompatible with the provisions of
                                                                                Directives 81 /851 /EEC and/or 81 /852/EEC ;
      ( d ) to suspend the time limits for a grant of a marketing
              authorization laid down by Article 8 of Directive                         ( ii ) infringe the principles of proportionality;
              81 /851 /EEC until the applicant has agreed to
              supply the information referred to in ( a )?                            ( iii ) are prohibited by Articles 30 to 36 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
2 . Is it material to the answers in questions 1 ( a ) to ( d )
     whether the process of manufacture of the product is                             ( iv ) are insufficiently reasoned within the meaning
     continuous or other than continuous and if so what                                         of Article 40 of Directive 81 / 851 /EEC ?
     would be the effect on the answers to those
      questions ?                                                              ( b ) If the answer to question 7 ( a ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) and ( iv ) or
                                                                                any of them is in the affirmative, under what
                                                                                conditions does such liabilitv arise ?
3 . Would it be material to the answers to questions 1 ( a ) to
      ( d ) if it were not reasonably possible for an applicant to
      obtain any of the information referred to in question               (') OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
       1(1 ), and if so what would be the effect on the answers           (-) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 16 .
      to those questions ?
4 . ( a ) If the requests for further information and the other
              requirements described in question 1 , or any of
              them, are prima facie permissible under Directives
              81 /851 /EEC and 81 /852/EEC , must such requests
              and requirements comply with the Community law
              principle of proportionality ?                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
                                                                          Circondariale di Genova by order of that court of 19 April
       ( b ) If the answer to ( a ) is affirmative, are those              1995 in the case of Livia Balestra v. Istituto Nazionale della
              principles to be applied in this case by the national                                 Previdenza Sociale ( INPS )
              court or by the Court of Justice ?                                                         ( Case C-139/95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/09 )
       (c)     ( l ) If they are to be applied by the Court of
                     Justice, do the said requests and requirements
                     or any of them infringe the principles of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     proportionality ?                                     European Communities by an order of the Pretura
 ---pagebreak--- No C 174/6              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8 . 7 . 95
Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Genova , of                   public holidays , but does not prohibit working in such
19 April 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                   shops on those days ( and imposes the penalties of forced
2 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Livia                    closure and withdrawal of their licences on shops in
Balestra v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale                       breach of that requirement ), constitute :
( INPS ) on the following questions :
( a ) Is it contrary to the abovementioned EEC Directives                     ( a ) a measure having an effect equivalent to a
      ( Articles 1 , 2, 3 , 4 and 5 of Council Directive                            restriction on imports within the meaning of
      79/7/EEC (') and Articles 1 , 2 and 5 of Council                              Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and subsequent
      Directive 76/207/EEC ( 2 ) to establish different age                         rules of Community law adopted in pursuance of
      limits for the working lives of men and women for the                         the principles laid down therein; or
      purposes of entitlement to early retirement pursuant to
      Article 16 of Law No 155/81 , termination of the                        ( b ) a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised
      employment relationship and calculation of pension                            restriction on trade between Member States; or
      benefits in the event of early retirement ?
( b ) Does the different treatment, with respect to the                       ( c ) a measure which is disproportionate and
      employment relationship and social security benefits ,                        inappropriate to the socio-ethical aim pursued by
      which results from the establishment of different age                         the provision of national law; or
      limits under a legal system , such as the Italian system,
       under which the retirement age — the only age limit of                 ( d ) an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty
       significance for the purposes of early retirement — is 60                    concerning freedom of establishment and of
      years of age for men and women alike, infringe the                            subsequent Community legislation enacted in
       abovementioned provisions of those Directives ?                              implementation of that principle; or
(') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
(-) O J No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                                    ( e ) at least an infringement of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive
                                                                                64/233/EEC (') concerning the attainment of
                                                                                freedom of establishment and freedom to provide
                                                                                services in respect of activities in wholesale trade;
                                                                                or
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
Circondariale , Rome ( Castelnuovo di Porto Division ) by
orders of that court of 22 December 1994 in the cases of                      ( f) an infringement of Directives 83/ 189/EEC ( 2 ) and
Citta Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. ( 1 ) Mayor of the                                 88/ 182/EEC ( 3 ) concerning the elimination of
Municipality of Trezzano sul Naviglio and ( 2 ) Mayor of the                        technical barriers to trade between the Member
                      Municipality of Turin                                         States , in view of the fact that the prohibition on
                ( Cases C-145/95 and C-146/95 )
                                                                                Sunday opening of shops is a general prohibition in
                                                                                appearance only, but in fact is subject to
                            ( 95/C 174/ 10 )                                        exemptions for a series of products which are,
                                                                                except in a very few unavoidable instances,
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the                            exclusively of domestic origin ?
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Rome
 ( Castelnuovo di Porto Division ) of 22 December 1994 ,                2 . If the answer to the first question, in each of its parts , is
which were received at the Court Registry on 10 May 1995                      in the affirmative, does the national measure fall within
 ( Case C-145/95 ) and 1 1 May 1995 ( Case C-146/95 ), for a                  the derogations from Article 30 provided for in
preliminry ruling in the cases of Citta Convenienza Bergamo                   Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, or within other
 Sri v. ( 1 ) Mayor of the Municipality of Trezzano sul                       derogations provided for by Community law ?
Naviglio and ( 2 ) Mayor of the Municipality of Turin on the
 following questions :
                                                                        ( l ) OJ No 56 , 4 . 4 . 1964 , p . 863 .
 1 . Does a provision of national law which ( save for certain          ( 2 ) OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
      products ) requires retail shops to close on Sundays and          ( ? ) OJ No L 81 , 26 . 3 . 1988 , p . 75 .


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-354/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to implement Directive 96/97/EC)

text:
C 333/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.11.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                           of 8 July 1999
                                                                                of 5 May 1999
in Case C-354/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                           in Case C-57/98 P: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas
                                                                             (ATM) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
               to implement Directive 96/97/EC)
                                                                           (Appeal — State aid — Reduction of social charges —
                                                                           Decision not to act on the complaint — Interest in bringing
                          (1999/C 333/19)                                                  proceedings — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/20)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-354/98: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-57/98 P: Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas
(Agent: Marie Wolfcarius) v French Republic (Agents: Kareen                (ATM), an association incorporated under Spanish law, estab-
Rispal-Bellanger and Anne de Bourgoing) — application for a                lished in Madrid, represented by Juan Eugenio Blanco Rodrı́g-
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            uez and Bernardo Vicente Hernández Bataller, of the Madrid
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directi-                   Chambers of André Sérébriacoff, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal
ve 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of                    against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
equal treatment for men and women in occupational social                   European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Compo-
security schemes (OJ 1997 L 46, p. 20), the French Republic                sition) of 18 December 1997 in Case T-178/94 ATM v Com-
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the            mission [1997] ECR II-2529, seeking to have that judgment
Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the              set aside and to have the claims put forward by the applicant
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;                 at first instance upheld, the other party to the proceedings
A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given            being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                    Francisco Santaolalla and Juan Guerra Fernández) — the Court
                                                                           (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
                                                                           the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann,
1. Declared that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and        Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council             made an order on 5 May 1999, the operative part of which is
    Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directi-               as follows:
    ve 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
    treatment for men and women in occupational social security
    schemes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations      1. The appeal is dismissed.
    under that directive;
                                                                           2. The Asociación Telefónica de Mutualistas is ordered to pay the
2. Ordered the French Republic to pay the costs.                                costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.


title: Case T-221/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
According to the applicant, the company managing the store               23 September 1999, the contract in respect of Lot No 5 for
did not properly carry out its loading obligations, and as the           the transport of 6 500 tonnes of skimmed-milk powder from
Polish police found overloading, they levied fines on the                Ireland to Russia.
applicant. Also, the managing company required prior pay-
ment of the additional charges for those loading operations.             According to the applicant the intervention agency, the
                                                                         Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development
In support of its claims, the applicant relies on the contractual        (D.A.F.) sent it the goods with substantial delay, which forced
and non-contractual liability of the Commission.                         it to pay demurrage to the owner of the ship which it had
                                                                         chartered.
The applicant relies on the same arguments as in Case                    In support of its claims seeking compensation for the losses
T-215/01, taking account of the fact that in the present case            suffered, the applicant pleads contractual liability and, alterna-
the additional charges were caused by the actions of the                 tively, non-contractual liability of the Commission by putting
warehouse of the intervention agency, which required prior               forward pleas and arguments similar to those presented in
payment of an additional sum for releasing and loading the               Case T-215/01.
goods and carried out the relevant operations badly, exposing
the applicant to the fines.
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (CE) No 1815/1999 of 18 August 1999
                                                                             on the supply of skimmed-milk powder to Russia (OJ 1999 L 220,
                                                                             p. 13).
Action brought on 24 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                             Removal from the Register of Case T-42/00 (1)
                         (Case T-221/01)                                                          (2001/C 317/71)
                         (2001/C 317/70)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        By order of 5 June 2001, the President of the Second Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the Register of Case
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                T-42/00, City-Broker Deutschland GmbH v the Office for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities on 24 September 2001 by Calberson                   Designs).
G.E., a company established in Paris, represented by Thierry
Gallois, lawyer.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant compen-
      sation equal to the totals of invoices BRU 114 4316
      (USD 25 761,11) and BRU 413 1828 (23 115,49 Euros);                       Removal from the Register of Case T-359/00 (1)
—     order interest at the legal rate to be added to the                                         (2001/C 317/72)
      compensation from the 8th day following each unpaid
      invoice;                                                                              (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order that all the costs be paid by the Commission.                By order of 21 June 2001, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-359/00,
                                                                         Organización de Productores Asociados de Grandes Atuneros
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                     Congeladores (OPAGAC) y Empresarios Asociados v Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities.
The applicant states that, in the context of Regulation
No 1815/1999 (1), the Commission awarded it, by decision of              (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.01.


title: Case T-440/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (Shape of a box of chocolates) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a box of chocolates — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (Shape of a box of chocolates)
   (Case T-440/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a box of chocolates - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 046/61)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Zakład Wyrobów Cukierniczych ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas (Przeźmierowo, Poland) (represented by: B. Kański, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 May 2013 (Case R 755/2012-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting in the shape of a box of chocolates as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zakład Wyrobów Cukierniczych ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-183/03: Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 146/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.6.2003
The PIC Convention establishes the principle that import and           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
export of a chemical covered by it can only take place with the
prior informed consent of the importing Party. The PIC
Convention establishes a procedure as a means to formally
obtain and disseminate the decisions of importing Parties and          Pleas in law and main arguments
to ensure compliance with these decisions by the exporting
Parties, called the ‘PIC procedure’.
                                                                       The action is directed against the contested decision in so far
                                                                       as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of
                                                                       EUR 26 446 505,00 incurred by the Federal Republic of
The Commission considers that the PIC Regulation falls within          Germany in respect of the arable crops sector in Brandenburg
the scope of the Community’s common commercial policy.                 for crop years 1999 and 2000 and imputes it to the Federal
The Regulation should therefore, as proposed by the Com-               Republic of Germany. That amount represents a flat-rate
mission, have been adopted as a Council Regulation based on            correction of 5 % of the expenditure notified for the Land of
Article 133 EC and not as a European Parliament and Council            Brandenburg for crop years 1999 and 2000 in the arable crops
Regulation based on Article 175(1) EC, which concerns                  sector.
measures adopted in the field of the Community’s environmen-
tal policy. The Commission maintains that the choice by the
European Parliament and the Council of the legal basis for the         In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
adoption of the PIC Regulation is erroneous and the act in             decision was adopted in breach of procedural rules and general
question is therefore illegal and should be annulled.                  principles of Community law. The Commission’s inspection
                                                                       findings and conclusions, which formed the basis of the
                                                                       decision, were incorrect in a number of material factual
( 1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1.                                          respects and, moreover, were based on a misinterpretation of
                                                                       law. A flat-rate imputation of 5 % is therefore completely
                                                                       illegal. That follows from the following seven pleas in law:
                                                                       —     Procedural errors. The complaints subsequently made by
                                                                             the Commission:
                                                                             —     ‘no reliable or current data on the parcels in the
                                                                                Allgemeines Liegenschaftsbuch (General Register of
                                                                                Real Property) (ALB)’ (Under Paragraph 12 of the
Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic                            Gesetz über die Landesvermessung und das Liegen-
of Germany against the Commission of the European                                  schaftskataster in Brandenburg (Law on Topo-
                            Communities                                            graphic Survey and the Land Register in Branden-
                                                                                burg — VermLiegG), the ALB constitutes, together
                                                                                with the real property map and real property data,
                          (Case C-183/03)                                          the cadastre of the Land of Brandenburg. It is held
                                                                                on computer),
                          (2003/C 146/56)                                    —     ‘double applications not detectable’,
                                                                             —     ‘there is hardly any or no connection between the
                                                                                parcels entered in the land register and those in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          agricultural use’ and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic of                      —     ‘it was not always possible to check and measure the
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,                      specified agricultural parcels on the basis of, for
Moritz Lumma, Regierungsdirektor, and Annette Tiemann,                             example, maps or aerial photographs, since the
Regierungsrätin z. A., Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurhein-                     holdings do not enclose with their applications
dorfer Straße 108, D-53117 Bonn.                                                   any maps or sketches of the specified agricultural
                                                                                parcels’,
                                                                             were not communicated to the German authorities in due
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  time. Breach of the procedure for the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/
—     annul Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February                   1999 ( 1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/
      2003 — C(2003) 500 final — excluding from Com-                         95 ( 2) and breaches of the principles of the right to a fair
      munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the                   hearing and proper administration are therefore alleged.
      Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                —     Reliability of the land identification system. In its second
      (EAGGF) in so far as an amount of EUR 26 446 500,00                    plea in law, the Federal Government defends itself against
      is excluded from Community financing and imputed to                    the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the
      the Federal Republic of Germany and                                    reliability of the identification system.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/35
—       Reliability of the on-the-spot checks, in particular                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
        adequate measurement of agricultural land. In its third             Tolmezzo by order of that Court of 16 April 2003 in the
        plea in law, Germany rebuts the Commission’s complaint              case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A.
        that Brandenburg did not adequately measure land in the                                   and COSPALAT F.V.G.
        course of on-the-spot checks, which constitutes a breach
        of Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 ( 3). That                                     (Case C-185/03)
        complaint is based, it submits, on factually and legally
        incorrect premisses.                                                                          (2003/C 146/57)
—       Adequate expansion of the sample coverage of on-the-
        spot checks. In its fourth plea in law, Germany deals with          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        the complaint that Brandenburg did not adequately                   European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Tolmezzo
        expand the required sample coverage of the on-the-spot              (Tolmezzo District Court) of 16 April 2003, received at the
        checks within the holdings visited.                                 Court Registry on 5 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            case of Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa against A.G.E.A. and
                                                                            COSPALAT F.V.G. on the following question:
—       The representative yields for non-food crops on set-aside
        land were assessed at a sufficiently high level. In its fifth       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
        plea in law, Germany demonstrates that the Commission’s
                                                                            1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 ( 2) of
        complaint — that the representative yields of renewable             28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
        raw materials were assessed at too low a level — is                 additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
        unjustified.
                                                                            an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
                                                                            liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
—       Lack of precision concerning the financial years to which           exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
        expenditure is imputed. In its sixth plea in law, the level
        of expenditure imputed by the decision is contested. The            (1 ) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
        Commission’s decision is in part imprecise and is invalid           (2 ) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
        in so far as its operative part and the statements in the
        Annex concerning an amount of EUR 12 927 107 are
        inconsiystent. In the 1999 and 2000 financial years, the
        Land of Brandenburg incurred expenditure for crop years
        1999 and 2000 of EUR 270 387 968. Applying the flat
        rate of 5 % imposed by the Commission, which is                             Removal from the register of Case C-302/01 ( 1)
        being contested, that results in an imputed amount of
        EUR 13 519 398. However, an amount of
                                                                                (2003/C 146/58)
        EUR 262 446 505 was imputed. Consequently an
        amount of EUR 12 927 107 was wrongly imputed.
                                                                            By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
—       Incorrect risk assessment. Finally, in its seventh plea in          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        law, it is argued that the declared flat-rate imputation of         from the register of Case C-302/01: Commission of the
        risk of 5 % is defective simply because no systematic               European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
        administrative or checking errors were the subject of
        complaint in Brandenburg in the relevant period. More-
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
        over, the calculation of the alleged loss to the EAGGF was
        made using inappropriate methods and arrived at in
        breach of Article 10 EC.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                     Removal from the register of Case C-86/02 (1)
     financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160,
     p. 103).                                                                                (2003/C 146/59)
( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
     down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
     (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the
     accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6).         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December                  of the European Communities ordered the removal from
     1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated            the register of Case C-86/02: Commission of the European
     administration and control system for certain Community aid            Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
     schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36).
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.


title: Case T-247/12: Action brought on 6 June 2012 — Argo Group International v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/25

         Action brought on 6 June 2012 — Argo Group International v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS)
   (Case T-247/12)
   2012/C 243/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: R. Hoy, S. Levine, and N. Edbrooke, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arisa Assurances SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul or alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2012 in case R 193/2011-2, so that the applicant’s mark is registered;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘ARIS’, for goods and services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7390404

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 307470 of the figurative mark in colours ‘ARISA ASSURANCES S.A.’ for goods and services in class 36

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant submits that OHIM and the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that the marks are legally similar and in concluding ipso facto that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.


title: Case C-196/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Waste management — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-196/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 75/442/EEC, 91/689/EEC and 1999/31/EC - Waste management - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment))
   (2015/C 046/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, A. Alcover San Pedro and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Italy (C-135/05, EU:C:2007:250), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, from the day on which the present judgment is delivered until the judgment in Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:250) has been complied with, a six-monthly penalty payment to be calculated, as regards the first six-month period following delivery of the present judgment, at the end of that period, on the basis of an initial amount set at EUR 4 2 8 00  000, from which the sum of EUR 4 00  000 is to be deducted in respect of each of the sites containing hazardous waste that has by then been brought into conformity with the judgment in Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:250) and the sum of EUR 2 00  000 is to be deducted in respect of every other site that has by then been brought into conformity with that judgment. The penalty payment due in respect of every six-month period thereafter is to be calculated, at the end of each such period, on the basis of an initial amount — being the amount of the penalty payment set for the preceding six-month period — from which the same deductions are to be made in respect of sites, covered by the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations, that have been brought into conformity during the six-month period under consideration;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 40 million;

               4.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-395/07: Action brought on 23 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/19

         Action brought on 23 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-395/07)
   (2007/C 247/24)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1), or to notify the Commission of any such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 29 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45 and OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16.


title: Removal from the register of T-139/95

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 181 /23
          Removal from the register of T- 187/96 (')                           Removal from the register of T-139/95 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /50 )                                                       ( 97/C 181 /53 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 15 April 1997 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 87/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-139/95 : Georges Cantone v. Commission of the
Communities .                                                         European Communities .
(') OJ No C 27, 25 . 1 . 1997.                                        O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
          Removal from the register of T-l 8 8/96 (')                          Removal from the register of T-2 13/96 ( ! )
                            97/C 181 /51 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /54 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 88/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-213/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
Communities .
                                                                      European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997 .
          Removal from the register of T-196/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /52 )                                     Removal from the register of T-133/96 H
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /55 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 10 April 1997 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of              By order of 23 April 1997 the President of the First
Case T-196/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                      Case T-133/96 : Michael Boessen v. Economic and Social
 1 OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997.                                        Committee .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case C-496/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2014  — The Romanian State v Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 6 November 2014 — The Romanian State v Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   (Case C-496/14)
   (2015/C 046/27)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: The Romanian State, represented by the Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu in the name and on behalf of the Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

      Respondents: Tamara Văraru and Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

      Question referred

   Are Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 21(1), 24(1), 34(1) and (2) and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului No 111/2010, which provides that the second-born, third-born and so on of multiple births, the first-born of multiple births and children born as single births are to be treated differently?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case C-397/00: Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
9.12.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 355/17
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by the Commission                     The Commission claims that the Court should:
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-394/00)                                      and administrative provisions needed to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 98/68/EC (1) of 10 September
                        (2000/C 355/33)                                       1998 laying down the standard document referred to in
                                                                              Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and certain
                                                                              rules for checks at the introduction into the Community
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                     of feedingstuffs from third countries, the Hellenic Repub-
Justice of the European Communities on 25 October 2000 by                     lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                       that directive;
by Mr Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with
an address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
a member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the              binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
      control of major accident hazards involving dangerous             State to which they are addressed.
      substances (1), or in any event by failing to inform the
      Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that Directive.                             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
                                                                        States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
                                                                        of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
                                                                        of the Community.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which            measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance               The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 3 February           has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate that
1999 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary            directive fully into Greek law.
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 32.
(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by the Commission                     Action brought on 6 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                lic
                                                                                (Case C-403/00)
                         (Case C-397/00)
                        (2000/C 355/34)                                                           (2000/C 355/35)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Octo-            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 November
ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,              represented by G. Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and A. Bordes, of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                              Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-243/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2007 by Carsten Brinkmann against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2007 in Case T-322/05 Carsten Brinkmann v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/17

         Appeal brought on 22 May 2007 by Carsten Brinkmann against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2007 in Case T-322/05 Carsten Brinkmann v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-243/07 P)
   (2007/C 199/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Carsten Brinkmann (represented by: K. van Bebber, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings:

               1.

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

               2.

               Terra Networks, S.A.

         Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 in Case T-322/05;

               —

               annul Decision No 3646/2004 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 29 October 2004;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before OHIM and also of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant's appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance referred to above is based on an infringement of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark since, on a correct assessment, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation between the conflicting marks.
   First, it is not the case that the goods and services covered by the trade mark applied for and those covered by the opposing mark are completely identical.
   Second, the members of the public concerned are professionals, namely banking experts, property owners etc, rather than the average German consumer.
   Third, the ‘terra’ element of the opponent's mark is not very distinctive. The Court of First Instance failed to take any account at all of that crucial aspect. It failed to consider the distinctiveness of the opposing mark. That is important, however, because if the earlier mark is not very distinctive, there is no likelihood of confusion in circumstances where, as a rule, such a likelihood would otherwise exist. The less distinctive a sign, the lesser the scope of protection of the mark. Where trade marks are not very distinctive, a likelihood of confusion in legal terms cannot be based on even an actual (and extreme) likelihood of confusion.
   Fourth, the similarity of the signs depends on the similarity in figurative, aural and conceptual terms, with reliance being placed on the overall impression in each case, although the distinctive and dominant elements must be taken into account. The opposing mark is a figurative mark, consisting of the word ‘terra’ and a figurative element that is approximately the same size as the word element ‘terra’. The mere fact that the contested trade mark has no figurative element means that clear differences can be seen on an overall comparison of the marks. However, even if the word element ‘terra’ is assumed to dominate the opposing mark, there is no relevant similarity for the purposes of trade mark law. It must be emphasised that the term ‘terra’, which is well-known, conceptually, to the public, is indeed incorporated in its entirety into the fanciful word ‘Terranus’. However, the ‘terra’ sign has no independent, distinctive position in the ‘Terranus’ mark. Furthermore, the public is accustomed to the fact that terms which are derived from a certain root can acquire an entirely different meaning as a result of a variation, thereby losing any conceptual connection with the original term.


title: Case T-102/03: Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Centro Informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli investimenti in Sicilia — CIS — in liquidation against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/46               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Maison de l’Europe                     —     that the Commission, by encouraging the expansion of
Avignon-Méditerranée against the Commission of the                              actions and by making late payment (one and a half
                    European Communities                                        years) of the amounts granted, in particular to the MEAM,
                                                                                undermined the position of the latter. Consequently, by
                                                                                adopting the contested decision, the defendant appears
                         (Case T-100/03)                                        to have avoided discussion which, doubtless, would have
                                                                                shown it to be partially responsible for MEAM’s alleged
                                                                                shortcomings; such a discussion is nevertheless essential
                        (2003/C 112/85)                                         and must precede any decision to terminate the activities
                                                                                of an IPE.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant also alleges failure to provide a statement of
                                                                          reasons.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1 ) Not yet published.
European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Maison de
l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée (MEAM), established in
Avignon (France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 24 January 2003 of the Commission             Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Centro Informativo
      of the European Communities terminating the agreement               per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli
      on the setting up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE) in                  investimenti in Sicilia — CIS — in liquidation against the
      Avignon, signed on 23 October 2000;                                          Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the ‘recoverable costs’ in their
                                                                                (Case T-102/03)
      entirety.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/86)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant association in the present case is the same one
as in Case T-43/03 Maison de l’Europe Avignon-Méditer-                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ranée (1). The present action is directed against the termination
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
by the Commission of the agreement entered into with the                  European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Centro
applicant on the setting-up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE).
                                                                          Informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promo-
                                                                          zione degli investimenti in Sicilia — CIS — in liquidation,
                                                                          represented by Andrea Scuderi and Giorgia Motta, lawyers.
The termination at issue of the agreement in question is
based cumulatively on an alleged ‘loss of confidence’ by the
Commission in the applicant and on certain provisions of the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
new financial regulation.
                                                                          —     annul the contested decision
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     error of law in the present case, inasmuch as the grounds
      for the conduct at issue were not among those which
      could validly justify its adoption under the applicable
      provisions. Neither the agreement in question, Annex I              Pleas in law and main arguments
      thereto on the statutes of the IPE, nor the new financial
      regulation provide for termination of an agreement on
      the setting-up of an IPE in the event that the Commission           The present application has been brought against the decision
      loses confidence in the other party.                                of the Commission of 15 November 2002 C(2002) 4155
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/47
concerning the withdrawal of the contribution of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted, in the form of a
global subsidy in support of the activities of an ‘Information             —     annul Ms Dionyssopoulou’s definitive staff report dated
centre for collaboration between undertakings and the pro-                       20 December 2002;
motion of investment’, by Commission Decision C(93) 256/4
of 16 February 1993 as part of the Community support
framework for Community structural operations in Sicily in                 —     order the Council to pay damages in the amount of
pursuance of Objective 1, and the recovery of amounts already                    EUR 8 000;
paid by the Commission by virtue of that contribution.
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
—     Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 4253/88 ( 1) of 19 December 1988, laying down                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/
      88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-               The applicant in this case contests the assessments contained
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other                 in her definitive staff report for the period from 1 July 1999
      existing financial instruments inasmuch as the CIS did               to 30 June 2001.
      not wilfully misuse the approved subsidy but was unable
      to supplement it through no fault of its own, the fault
      being exclusively that of the Sicilian regional adminis-             She alleges in that respect breach of the Guide to Staff Reports
      tration which delayed in drawing up the contract between             and a manifest error of assessment. These are apparent in
      the defendant and the CIS.                                           particular from the implied criticism that the applicant did not
                                                                           participate fully in all the tasks of the service on medical
—     Infringement of clause 14 of the abovementioned agree-               grounds.
      ment inasmuch as the Commission should have acknowl-
      edged the reimbursement of the expense incurred, par-
      ticularly in view of the fact that in the present case the
      intermediary was not able to carry out the planned
      activities for unforeseeable reasons beyond its control.
The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of force
majeure, proportionality and legitimate expectations and, in
the present case, misuse of powers.                                        Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
( 1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case T-106/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/88)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia
Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European
                              Union
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                          (Case T-105/03)                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley, residing
                                                                           in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien
                          (2003/C 112/87)                                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 —     annul the decision finalising the applicant’s definitive staff
Communities on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia Dionysso-                          report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;
poulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by François
Renard, lawyer.                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-61/14: Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/26

         Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee)
   (Case T-61/14)
   2014/C 129/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luis Yus Balaguer (Movera, Spain)

      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 15 November 2013 given in Case R 821/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark containing the verbal elements ‘icexpresso + energy coffee’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 30, 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 950 403

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier marks: CTM registrations Nos 8 445 711, 8 815 722 and 8 815 748 for goods in Classes 5 and 32

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case T-323/03: Action brought on 12 September 2003 by La Baronia de Turis against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 275/51
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             —     violates the principle of proportionality;
—     declare that the Community has, through the European              —     treats the applicants unequally in comparison with traders
      Parliament and the Council, incurred non-contractual                    active in the sphere of foodstuffs for human beings;
      liability, and order the defendants to make good all loss
      suffered by the applicants on account of the directive in         —     was adopted on the wrong legal basis. The directive at
      question;                                                               issue ought to have been based on Article 37 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty and not on Article 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty,
—     declare that interest at the annual rate of 8 % (or at an               since it has nothing to do with the veterinary and
      appropriate rate to be fixed by the Court) is payable from              phytosanitary field.
      the date of the Court’s decision finding the Community
      liable until the time of payment;
                                                                        (1) OJ L 63 of 6 June 2002, p. 23.
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Action brought on 12 September 2003 by La Baronia de
This application claims compensation for the damage suppos-             Turis against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
edly caused by Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parlia-                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
ment and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending
Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound
feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/                                         (Case T-323/03)
EEC (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 275/86)
The abovementioned directive introduces a requirement that
manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs should indicate on                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
their labels the precise quantities (in percentages) of all
feed materials included in each feedingstuff. By so doing it
establishes quite new labelling rules for compound feeding-
stuffs which, according to the applicants, will result in the           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
compulsory divulgence of the know-how and fundamental                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
commercial secrets of the compound feedingstuff manufac-                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
turers. The introduction of those rules will enable the com-            12 September 2003 by La Baronia de Turis, Cooperativa
pound feedingstuff manufacturers’ customers to know not                 Valenciana, established in Turis, Valencia (Spain), represented
only the formula but also the exact cost of the feed materials,         by Juan José Carreño Moreno, lawyer.
so that the applicants will, they argue, lose their greatest
vehicle of competition and their very existence could be
jeopardised.                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
In support of their claims the applicants maintain that the                   Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
contested directive:                                                          Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 July 2003 in Case R 57/
                                                                              2003-2;
—     infringes their know-how and commercial secrets which
      are protected in the Community legal order;                       —     order that registration be refused in respect of Community
                                                                              trade mark No 2 057 487 ‘LA BARONNIE’, owned by
—     fails to have regard to protection of undistorted compe-                the undertaking Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA, to
      tition, to reinforcement of the competitiveness of the                  designate products within Class 33 of the Nice Classifi-
      Community industry and encouragement of technologi-                     cation.
      cal R. & D.;
—     infringes the right to property and the right to carry on
      economic activity freely;                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     militates against improvement of agricultural products            Applicant for Com-             Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA.
      and protection of the environment;                                munity trade mark:
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/52              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        15.11.2003
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘LA BARONNIE’ —                  —     annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
sought:                       Application No. 2 057 487 for                    name on the list of promoted officials published in AN
                              products in Class 33 (alcoholic                  No 2002-69 of 14 August 2002;
                              beverages, except beers).
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay him token damages of
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.                                   EUR 1 for the damage suffered by him as a result of the
sign cited in the oppo-                                                        failure to draw up the staff report for the period 1997 to
sition proceedings:                                                            1999;
Mark or sign cited in         National word mark ‘BARONIA’               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
opposition:                   for products covered by Class 33
                              (‘wines of all types’).
Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
sition Division:                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
Appeal:                                                                  In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                         of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle
Pleas in law:                 Incorrect        application      of       of equal treatment and non-discrimination and manifest error
                              Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)         of assessment.
                              No 40/94 (likelihood of con-
                              fusion).
                                                                         Action brought on 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germany)
                                                                         GmbH & Co. OHG against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich
Winter against Commission of the European Commu-
                              nities                                                             (Case T-328/03)
                        (Case T-324/03)                                                          (2003/C 275/88)
                       (2003/C 275/87)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 September 2003 by O2 (Germ-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                any) GmbH & Co. OHG, Munich, Germany, represented by Mr
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               N. Green QC, Mr K. Bacon, Barrister, Mr B. Amory, lawyer and
European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Heinrich                    Ms Francesca Marchini Camia, lawyer.
Winter, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Sébasti-
en Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul articles 2 and 3(a) of the Commission Decision of
                                                                               16 July 2003 in case COMP/38.369;
—     annul the decision of the Commission not to include his
      name on the list of officials deemed to be most deserving          —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;
      of promotion to Grade A 4 for the 2002 promotions
      procedure published in Administrative Notices (AN)                 —     make any such further order as the Court deems appro-
      No 2002-68 of 12 August 2002;                                            priate.


title: Case T-451/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Wind v OHIM — Sanyang Industry (Wind)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/56

         Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Wind v OHIM — Sanyang Industry (Wind)
   (Case T-451/09)
   2010/C 24/101
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harry Wind (Selfkant, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanyang Industry Co. Ltd (Hsinchu, Taiwan)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2009 in case R 1470/2008-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Wind”, for goods and services in classes 11, 12 and 37

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Wind”, for services in class 37

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/04 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that there was similarity between the goods and services covered by the Community trade mark concerned.


title: Case C-544/08: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 4 December 2009 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/27

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 4 December 2009 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-544/08) (1)

   2010/C 51/45

      Language of the case: Czech

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

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-276/99: Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 281/7
— Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of                 Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic
     the authority of measures: The Court of First Instance               of Germany against the Commission of the European
     misinterprets the authority of the suspension decision of                                        Communities
     27 September 1995, which linked the alleged unauthorised
     public expression only to Article 17 of the Staff Regu-
     lations and not to Articles 11 and 12 thereof.                                                 (Case C-276/99)
— Infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and the
     duty of loyalty: The applicant having stated that it was not                                   (1999/C 281/14)
     possible for him to take cognisance of a disciplinary
     sanction, even with the penalised officials enjoying the
     benefit of anonymity, it was for the Commission to                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     produce evidence demonstrating the policy followed in                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     cases of publication by a serving official without prior             Communities on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of
     authorisation.                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
                                                                          and Claus-Dieter, Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the
                                                                          Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53117 Bonn.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) annul Decision K(1999) 1123 final of the Commission of
                                                                               21 April 1999 concerning a proceeding under Article 88
                                                                               of the ECSC Treaty concerning State aid granted by
                                                                               Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
istratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of                      (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des
                  Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-275/99)
                          (1999/C 281/13)                                 The applicant challenges the finding in the contested decision
                                                                          that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the ECSC
                                                                          Treaty in relation to the recovery of State aid (1) Unlike the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Commission, the applicant takes the view that the bringing of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-                 court proceedings initially in respect of only 20 % of the claims
tratif de Strasbourg (Administrative Court, Strasbourg) of                in question is reasonable in order to economise on costs
22 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 1999,             and is unobjectionable even though no notarially certified
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société Adidas v                  agreement is available in respect of the remaining 80 % which
Directeur des Services Fiscaux on the following question:                 would ensure that following the delivery of a court decision
                                                                          on the partial claim, the Commission’s decision would be
                                                                          implemented without delay as regards the rest of the claim.
                                                                          The applicant further considers, unlike the Commission, that
Whether the authorisation granted to France by the Council                the decision of the Free State of Bavaria not to lodge an appeal
Decision of 28 July 1989, published in the Official Journal of            against the order for a stay of proceedings made by the
the European Communities on 16 August 1989 (1), to intro-                 Landgericht Amberg (Amberg Regional Court) does not
duce measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, excluding              infringe Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty; although the lodging of
value added tax which has been charged on expenditure in                  an appeal against an order staying proceedings was theoreti-
respect of accommodation, food, hospitality and entertainment             cally possible, it would have served no purpose in the
from the right to deduct, is disproportionate to the aim of               specific circumstances of the case and was not, therefore, an
combating tax evasion laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth                appropriate measure within the meaning of Article 86 of the
Directive.                                                                ECSC Treaty.
(1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the           (1) The aid in question is that which was the subject-matter of Joined
    French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second             Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 ant T-97/96 (judgment of the Court of
    subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC           First Instance of 21 January 1999) and of Cases C-158/95 (OJ
    on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating            C 208 of 12.8.1995, p. 4), C-399/95 (OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996, p.
    to turnover taxes (OJ L 239 of 16.8.1989, p. 21).                         5) and C-195/96 (OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996, p. 5).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 September 1997 in Case T-26/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Retroactive repeal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/27
thereof to the peoples of Georgia and Armenia and                   3 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
for annulment of the Commission's refusal to grant
compensation — the Court of First Instance (Third                   (') OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 18 July 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows :
1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissibile.               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 1997
2. The applicant shall bear the costs.                              in Case T-26/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (')
H OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .                                         (Action for annulment — Retroactive repeal of the
                                                                            contested measure — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    In Case T-26/97, Antillean Rice Mills NV, established
                      of 3 October 1997                             in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by W.
                                                                    Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and K. J. Defares, of the
in Case T-184/96 : Eric Banda v. Commission of the
                                                                    Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                         at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
     (Case not proceeding to judgment — Inadmissibility)            Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: T. van
                                                                    Rijn ) — application for annulment of Commission
                         ( 97/C 357/51 )                            Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of 8 January 1997 introducing
                                                                    safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice
                 (Language of the case: French)                     originating in the overseas countries and territories ( OJ
                                                                    L 5, 9 . 1 . 1997, p. 24 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                    ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,P.
In Case T-184/96: Eric Banda, a member of the local staff           Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
of the Commission of the European Communities,                      an order on 17 September 1997, the operative part of
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with            which is as follows :
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v. Commission of the                 1 . There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
European Communities (Agents: Florence Clotuche and
Christine Berardis-Kayser) — application, primarily, for
annulment of the Commission's decision by which it                  2 . The parties shall each bear their own costs, including
decided to invalidate the regional elections held amongst                those relating to the application for interim measures.
the local staff serving within Geographical Region No 11
 between 5 and 20 December 1994 and to reorganize the               (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
same and, in the alternative, for annulment of the
 Commission rules of 8 March 1990 entitled 'Transitional
Arrangements for the Representation of Staff Serving
 Outside the Community' and annulment of the regional
elections held amongst the local staff serving in
 Geographical Region No 11 between 4 and 15 November                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1996 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),                                      of 29 September 1997
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. P. Briet
 and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an             in Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton
 order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is                   Armé ( Sateba) v. Commission of the European
 as follows :                                                                                Communities (M
                                                                     (Public procurement — Complaint — Proceedings for a
 1 . There is no need to give a decision on the application          declaration of failure to fulfil obligations — Decision not
      made by the applicant, as a candidate therein, for             to proceed — Application for annulment —
      annulment of the Commission 's decision invalidating                                      Inadmissibility)
      the elections held between 5 and 20 December 1994                                           ( 97/C 357/53 )
      amongst the local staff serving in Geographical Region
      No 1 1 and ordering the same to be reorganized.                                 (Language of the case: French)
 2 . The remainder of the application is dismissed as                In Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton
      inadmissible.                                                  Armé ( Sateba ), established in Paris, represented by Jacques


title: Case T-183/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/20

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)
   (Case T-183/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 269/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2500/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               L’Oréal shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.