title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2000 in Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human use which contain "amfepramon" — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
C 273/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.9.2000
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 28 June 2000
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         (Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                                Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/20)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           of 6 July 2000                                In Case T-191/98 R II: Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established
                                                                         in Seoul, South Korea, represented by N. Bromfield and
in Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS)               C. Thomas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    v European Parliament (1)                            Luxembourg at the chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae
                                                                         and Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — Application for suspension
(Public services contract — Passenger transport by chauf-                of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of
feur-driven vehicles — Invitation to tender — Compliance                 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
with national law — Principles of sound administration and               Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
of the duty to cooperate in good faith — Rejection of a                  Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1) in
                               tender)                                   so far as, in Article 8, it imposes a fine of EUR 13 750 000 on
                                                                         the applicant, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                         given an order on 28 June 2000, in which:
                          (2000/C 273/19)
                                                                         1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        2.   The applicant is given 15 days in which to lodge at the Registry
                                                                              a request for confidential treatment.
In Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS),              3.   Costs are reserved.
established in Strasbourg (France), represented by C. Imbach
and A. Dissler, of the Strasbourg Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
Béatrix de Bourbon, v European Parliament (agents: P. Runge
Nielsen and O. Caisou-Rousseau) — application, first, for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to accept the
tender submitted by the applicant in the context of invitation
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
to tender No 99/S 18-8765/FR relating to a contract for
                                                                                INSTANCE
passenger transport by chauffeur-driven vehicles during the
Parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg and, second, for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                                     of 28 June 2000
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and             in Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH v Commission of
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for                             the European Communities
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which
it:                                                                      (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of authorisation
                                                                         for medicinal products for human use which contain ‘amfe-
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              pramon’ — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing
                                                                                of interests)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the
      Parliament’s costs.                                                                          (2000/C 273/21)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH, established in Lüchow,
                                                                         Germany, represented by U. Doepner, Rechtsanwalt, Düssel-
 ---pagebreak--- 23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 273/13
dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, v                        Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                                         Union.
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for suspension
of operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000
on withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for                                          (Case T-177/00)
human use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                          (2000/C 273/23)
28 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000 on                               (Language of the case: English)
      withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
      use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) is suspended
      with regard to the applicant.                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Communities on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips Elec-
                                                                           tronics N.V., represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Filip
                                                                           Ragolle of Stanbrook-Hooper, Brussels.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, the
                                                                                Council’s decision to reject the Commission proposal for
                                                                                a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     duty on imports of certain parts of television camera
                              INSTANCE                                           systems originating in Japan;
                                                                           —     order, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) EC, the
                          of 18 May 2000
                                                                                Council to make good any damage caused to the applicant
                                                                                by its unlawful rejection of the Commission’s proposal
in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                          for a Regulation or, alternatively, its failure to impose
                     European Communities                                        adequate protective measures before the expiry of the
                                                                                15 month deadline;
     (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
                                                                                Council.
                          (2000/C 273/22)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The present application arises out of the fact that the Council
In Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                    did not adopt the Commission’s proposal of 7 April 2000 for
Commission of the European Communities, in service at the                  a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, residing at Besozzo (Italy),           on imports of certain parts of television camera systems
represented by V. Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, of Via Speroni 14,          originating in Japan (COM(2000) 195 final). According to the
Varese, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   applicant, the Council’s failure to achieve a simple majority in
G. Valsesia) — application for interim measures in the form of             support of the Commission’s proposal combined with the
suspension of operation of the decision removing him from                  expiry of the 15-month time limit of Article 6(9) of the Basic
his post, adopted by the Commission on 30 September 1999                   Regulation (1) amounts to a definitive negative decision, which
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order               it challenges in the present case.
on 18 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           The applicant’s case for annulment falls basically into two
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   alternative parts. On the one hand, the applicant argues that,
                                                                           at the end of the 15-month time limit, the Council ultimately
2.    The costs are reserved.                                              had no power to reject the Commission’s proposal, since it
                                                                           had previously failed to involve itself in the fact finding and
                                                                           procedural aspects of the case. Under the current Basic
                                                                           Regulation, the Council has limited itself to the possibility of
                                                                           amending some of the modalities of the proposal, while


title: Case T-270/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Lego Juris v OHIM — Mega Brands (Red Lego brick) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Red Lego brick — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Offers of evidence)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Lego Juris v OHIM — Mega Brands (Red Lego brick)
   (Case T-270/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Red Lego brick - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Offers of evidence)
   (2009/C 6/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Mega Brands, Inc. (Montreal, Canada) (represented by: P. Cappuyns and C. De Meyer, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 856/2004-G) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mega Brands, Inc. and Lego Juris A/S.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case F-59/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — FX v Commission (Civil service — Temporary staff — Severance grant — Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Termination of service)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 March 2016 — FX v Commission
   (Case F-59/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Severance grant - Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Termination of service))
   (2016/C 136/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FX (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to pay the severance grant requested by the applicant following the termination of his service, and a claim for compensation for the damage the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders FX to bear two thirds of his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by FX.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 48.


title: Case C-477/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, in his capacity as liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi — fonds de fermeture d’entreprises, Centre de gestion et d’études de l’Association pour la gestion du régime de garantie des créances des salariés de Lille (CGEA) (Preliminary ruling — Directives 80/987/EEC and 2002/74/EC — Insolvency of the employer — Protection of employees — Payment of outstanding workers’ claims — Determination of the competent guarantee institution — More favourable guarantee under national law — Possibility of relying on that law)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, in his capacity as liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi — fonds de fermeture d’entreprises, Centre de gestion et d’études de l’Association pour la gestion du régime de garantie des créances des salariés de Lille (CGEA)
   (Case C-477/09) (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Directives 80/987/EEC and 2002/74/EC - Insolvency of the employer - Protection of employees - Payment of outstanding workers’ claims - Determination of the competent guarantee institution - More favourable guarantee under national law - Possibility of relying on that law)
   2011/C 139/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Charles Defossez

      Defendants: Christian Wiart, in his capacity as liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi — fonds de fermeture d’entreprises, Centre de gestion et d’études de l’Association pour la gestion du régime de garantie des créances des salariés de Lille (CGEA)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10), in conjunction with Article 9 of that directive — Determination of the competent guarantee institution in respect of payment of workers’ outstanding claims — Guarantee institution of the Member State on the territory of which the workers are habitually employed — Possibility for the employees to take advantage of the more favourable guarantee provided by the institution with which their employer is insured and to which it makes contributions under national law

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in the version thereof as it existed before it was amended by Directive 2002/74, is to be interpreted as meaning that, for the payment of the outstanding claims of workers having been habitually employed in a Member State other than that where their employer is established, where the employer was declared insolvent before 8 October 2005 and that employer is not established in that other Member State and fulfils its obligation to contribute to the financing of the guarantee institution in the Member State where it is established, it is that institution which is liable for the obligations defined by that article.
   Directive 80/987 does not preclude a Member State’s legislation from providing that employees may avail themselves of the salary guarantee from that Member State’s institution in accordance with its law, either in addition to or instead of the guarantee offered by the institution designated as competent under that directive, provided however that that guarantee results in a greater level of worker protection.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-155/11 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Bibi Mohammad Imran v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/18

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Bibi Mohammad Imran v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
   (Case C-155/11 PPU) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 269/30
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bibi Mohammad Imran

      Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) — Conditions governing the exercise of that right — National legislation requiring a member of the family of a third-country national residing lawfully in the Member State concerned to pass a civic integration examination in order to be able to enter that Member State — Member of the family concerned being a mother of eight children, including seven minors, who are lawfully residing in the Member State concerned — Possibility of obtaining tuition in the third country of residence in the language of the Member State — Medical reasons or other grounds preventing the family member concerned from passing the integration examination within a reasonable period of time

      Operative part of the order

   It is not necessary to give a ruling on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands), by decision of 31 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case T-309/12: Action brought on 6 July 2012 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/19

         Action brought on 6 July 2012 — Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung v Commission
   (Case T-309/12)
   2012/C 273/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Rivenich, Germany) (represented by: A. Kerkmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C-19/2010) (ex NN 23/2010), which Germany granted to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Case C(2012) 2557 final);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU by determining that the applicant is to be regarded as an undertaking.
               The payment of contributions aims to fulfil a public service activity independent of the market. In carrying out that activity the applicant was not acting as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) and Article 106(2) TFEU in finding that the applicant was granted a financial advantage by means of the payments and that it was not a service in the general economic interest.
               Through the payments made by its members, the applicant does not receive any economic advantage, since the payments remain in the sphere of public service activity and there is no co-financing of any other activity offered by the applicant on the market. In the alternative, the applicant submits that it provides a service in the general economic interest, which the Commission fails to recognise, thereby manifestly infringing the powers of discretion recognised in the case-law, which constitutes an error of assessment. Moreover, the four ‘Altmark criteria’ are satisfied in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in wrongly finding that the criteria were satisfied for there to be a distortion of competition and distortion of trade between Member States.
               In Germany, the disposal of category 1 and category 2 animal by-products, within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 1069/2009, is not open to the market, with the result that, since the appliant was legitimately granted exclusive rights, competition was not distorted and trade not affected.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU by misconceiving the conditions for approval laid down in that provision.
               In its assessment, the Commission wrongly applied the criterion of economic interest and infringed its powers of examination in failing to restrict itself to examining whether there had been over-compensation.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: failure to observe the division of competencies between the European Union and the Member States laid down in Article 14 TFEU and, at the same time, infringement of the principle of subsidiarity (Article 5(3) EU).
               The Commission failed to observe the prerogative on the part of the authorities of the Member States in determining which services fall within the general economic interest.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 in finding that the payments made since 1998 constitute new aid.
               The Commission’s findings are based on an insufficient assessment of the facts.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law: infringement of Article 2 EU, Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 by failing to have regard to the requirements of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.
               The Commission wrongly assumed that, as a result of the judgment of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) of 16 December 2010 (AZZ. 3 C 44.09), the applicant could not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, although the judgment expressly ruled out the possibility of classing payments of contributions to the applicant as State aid. Since that judgment has become final, the Commission also infringed the principle of legal certainty.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law: infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) 659/1999 in instructing the Member State to recover all payments dating back to 1998 — Infringement of the principles of necessity and proportionality.
               The Commission’s requirement for Germany to recover all contributions made to the applicant since 1998 is disproportionate, since it fails to take account of the fact that, in reserving installation capacities in accordance with the decision of its members, the applicant actually incurred costs which were not covered.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in finding that the contribution payments used for the remediation of contaminated sites constitute State aid.
               The contributions used for the remediation of contaminated sites compensate for a structural disadvantage which the applicant incurred as a result of being assigned the sites by law by the Land Rheineland-Palatinate and, consequently, they do not constitute State aid.


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-230/04 (1)

   (2005/C 19/41)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 29 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-230/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of France.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004.


title: Case F-25/07: Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Bleser v Court of Justice

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/36

         Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Bleser v Court of Justice
   (Case F-25/07)
   (2007/C 117/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Bleser (Nittel, Germany) (represented by: P. Goergen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the applicant's classification in the grade allocated to him in the decision of 16 March 2006 regarding his appointment;

               —

               Annulment of Articles 2 and 13 in Appendix XIII and of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations which entered into force on 1 May 2004;

               —

               Classification of the applicant in the grade which was published in the notice of competition or in the grade which corresponds to it according to the classifications of the new Staff Regulations (and in the corresponding step according to the provisions which were applicable before 1 May 2004);

               —

               Award of damages in the amount corresponding to the difference in remuneration;

               —

               Award of damages in the amount of EUR 10 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is essentially brought against the provisions of Articles 2 and 13 in Appendix XIII and of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities which entered into force on 1 May 2004.
   The applicant submits that his classification should have been carried out under the Staff Regulations which were in force at the time when he sat the selections tests and were more favourable to him. In support of his action, he claims that his classification infringed the principle of equality, the principle of non-discrimination and the prohibition of discrimination based on age.
   In addition, the applicant submits that there has been infringement of the general principles of Community law, in particular of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration, the principle of transparency, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of good faith, the prohibition on reformatio in pejus (prohibition on deterioration) and the principle of the right to a fair hearing.


title: Case C-232/16 P: Appeal brought on 20 April 2016 by Simet SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2016 in Case T-15/14 Simet v Commission

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/7

         Appeal brought on 20 April 2016 by Simet SpA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 3 March 2016 in Case T-15/14 Simet v Commission
   (Case C-232/16 P)
   (2016/C 232/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Simet SpA (represented by: C. Clarizia, C. Varrone, P. Clarizia, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal (Case T-15/14), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/201/EU of 2 October 2013 on compensation to be paid to SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003 (state aid measure SA.33037 (2012/C) — Italy) and annul that decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal infringes:

               —

               Article 107 TFEU, in so far as it held that the compensation payments to SIMET granted by virtue of a ruling of the Italian Consiglio di Stato and notified by the national authorities constituted State aid, while the dispute decided by the national court concerned compensation for damage suffered by the appellant on account of unlawful aspects of acts of the Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) in connection with the provision of inter-regional road transport public service during the period between 1987 and 2003;

               —

               Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (1), in so far as the General Court failed to acknowledge that the relevant Italian legislation did not comply with that regulation on two grounds: (1) it required an individual to carry out his economic activity as a public service only, while, in accordance with Regulation No 1191/69, that manner of performing an undertaking’s activity is prohibited in so far as public service requires a concession-holder to comply with public service obligations; (2) it did not provide for compensation for service obligations performed by the undertaking; following the changes introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 (2), Simet could no longer be subject to any public service obligation since it was an inter-regional bus passenger transport undertaking;

               —

               Regulation No 1191/69, in particular in so far as the General Court erred in considering that the Commission's decision that payments to Simet constituted State Aid was lawful because, since the company had not used separate accounts for costs incurred in respect of that activity, there was a risk of overcompensation. Contrary to the view of the General Court, Article 5 et seq. of the regulation laid down a different method of determining compensatory measures based on the ‘effects’ that the imposition of such public service obligations might have on the loss of competitiveness of the undertaking as a whole;

               —

               the principles concerning compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringement of EU law, principles according to which if an authority of a Member State adopts an administrative measure within its competence which is contrary to EU law, that authority is required to pay damages to the addressee of that measure, on account of the fact that it is unlawful.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition, 1969, p. 276).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ 1991 L 169, p. 1).


title: Case T-236/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  24 November 2005  — Marcuccio v Commission (Officials — Reassignment in the interests of the service — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons — Duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials Rights of the defence — Misuse of powers — Articles 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Action for damages)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-236/02) (1)

   (Officials - Reassignment in the interests of the service - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons - Duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials Rights of the defence - Misuse of powers - Articles 25 and 26 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Action for damages)
   (2006/C 22/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofalo, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by A. dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2002 which reassigned the applicant from the Directorate-General for Development, Commission's Delegation in Luanda (Angola), to the Directorate General for Development in Brussels, of all preliminary, connected or consecutive measures, in particular those relating to the recruitment of another official to occupy his post, of the Commission's notes of 13 and 14 November 2001 and of the opinion or opinions of the managing Committee of the external services, and a claim indemnities in connection with his duties in Angola and damages for harm suffered
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application.

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.


title: Case C-139/07P: Appeal brought on 8 March 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/6

         Appeal brought on 8 March 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-139/07P)
   (2007/C 140/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Kreuschitz and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, Schott Glas, Kingdom of Sweden and Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 (1) in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission which annuls the decision of the Commission of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to the investigation procedures in respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, and

               —

               order Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission of the European Communities request the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02, which annuls the decision of the Commission of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to the investigation of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH.
   According to the settled case-law of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, the parties, and accordingly the recipient of aid, have no right of access to documents in cases of investigation of aid. It follows that the decision of the Court of First Instance erred in law in paragraphs 87 to 89 of the judgment under appeal by stating that there were no special circumstances making it manifestly clear that the access to documents requested should be refused. In fact, it is clear from the case-law that the documents concerned are fully covered by an exception to the right of access to documents and accordingly that each document should not be individually examined.
   Furthermore, cases of investigation of aid are proceedings against the State granting the aid, particularly where the recipient of the aid has no entitlement to aid. Accordingly, what is relevant to the question of access to documents is what the Court of Justice itself has ruled in relation to actions for infringement under Article 226 EC, namely that there is no public no right of access to documents in such proceedings.
   The judgment under appeal also leads to the absurd result that the general public enjoys, on the basis of the legislation promoting transparency, namely Regulation No 1049/2001 (2), more extensive rights of access to documents than a recipient of aid who is directly subject to proceedings against him, who is also — precisely because he is directly and individually concerned for the purposes of Article 230(4) EC — entitled to raise proceedings against the decision ending the procedure. It is even harder to understand why the further consequence, namely that an application of a recipient of aid under reference to the applicable case-law may be rejected where such a response cannot be given to an application of a recipient of aid or an independent third party who relies on the transparency regulation.
   With the third ground of appeal, the Commission criticises the judgment under appeal for giving the same expression, namely the word ‘document’, in the singular, in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and in Article 6 of the regulation is given a different meaning. While, in Article 4(2), that word means that each document must be considered for a refusal to be given, the Court of First Instance interpreted Article 6 in such a way that access may also be requested to a bundle of documents that has been designated as an administrative file.
   With the fourth ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 255 EC, inasmuch as its decision was not arrived at on the basis of the language of the legislation, but on the basis of assumptions reached without reference to that wording.
   Lastly, the Commission claims that the Court of First Instance wrongly held that both the procedures relating to the investigation of the aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH had already been completed at the time of the decision concerning access to the administrative file, so that the authorities had no interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the documents. That is partly incorrect because of the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance also appears to have wrongly concluded that Regulation No 1049/2001 made the earlier case-law and the relevant procedural provisions relating to the monitoring of aid obsolete.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 331, p. 29

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43


title: Case T-202/16: Action brought on 3 May 2016 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/46

         Action brought on 3 May 2016 — Keturi kambariai v EUIPO — Coffee In (coffee inn)
   (Case T-202/16)
   (2016/C 270/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: UAB Keturi kambariai (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Pumputienė, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AS Coffee In (Tallinn, Estonia)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the colour claim ‘black, orange, white’ containing the word elements ‘coffee inn’ — Application for registration No 11 475 233

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Case R 137/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, consequently, reject the opposition and authorise the registration of the mark applied for;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs relating to the proceedings before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case T-344/13: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014  — Out of the blue v OHIM — Dubois and Another (FUNNY BANDS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FUNNY BANDS — Earlier national trade name FUNNY BANDS — Earlier national Internet domain name ‘www.funny-bands.com’  — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014 — Out of the blue v OHIM — Dubois and Another (FUNNY BANDS)
   (Case T-344/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark FUNNY BANDS - Earlier national trade name FUNNY BANDS - Earlier national Internet domain name ‘www.funny-bands.com’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Use of a sign in the course of trade of more than mere local significance - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rejection of the opposition))
   (2015/C 007/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium) and Another

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 April 2013 (Case R 542/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Out of the blue KG and Mr Frédéric Dubois and Another.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Out of the blue KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-383/99 P: Appeal brought on 8 October 1999 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-163/98 between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)

text:
C 6/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                1b) If the reply to Question 1a) is in the negative: In the
hof by order of that court of 5 August 1999 in the case of                 situation described in Question 1a), is the same classifi-
     Bertelsmann AG against Finanzamt Wiedenbrück                          cation in the collective agreement an indication of the
                                                                           same work or work of equal value within the meaning of
                                                                           Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and of
                         (Case C-380/99)                                   Directive 75/117/EEC, with the result that it is for the
                                                                           employer to prove that the activities in question are
                          (2000/C 6/22)                                    different?
                                                                       1c) Can the employer rely on circumstances not taken into
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     account in collective agreements in order to justify a
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       difference in pay?
(Federal Finance Court) of 5 August 1999, received at the
Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in          1d) If the reply to Question 1a) or 1b) is in the affirmative:
the case of Bertelsmann AG v Finanzamt Wiedenbrück on the                  Does this also apply if the classification in the professional
following question:                                                        category under the collective agreement is based on a job
                                                                           description in very general terms?
Is Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States             2a) Is there a definition of ‘worker’ underlying Article 119
relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as           (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC
meaning that the taxable amount in respect of the supply of a              which is uniform at least in so far as the worker’s obligation
bonus payable in kind, which is sent to the recipient in                   under the contract of employment depends not only on
exchange for recruiting a new client, includes not only the                generally defined standards, but also on the individual
purchase price of the bonus but also the delivery costs?                   capability of the worker himself?
                                                                       2b) Are Article 119 (now Article 141) of the Treaty and Article
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   1 of Directive 5/117/EEC to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a difference in pay may be objectively justified by
                                                                           circumstances which can be established only ex post facto,
                                                                           particularly the result of the work of a specific employee?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Wien (Austria) by order of that court of 15 June
1999 in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der
     österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft
                         (Case C-381/99)                               Appeal brought on 8 October 1999 by The Procter &
                                                                       Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                       8 July 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                          (2000/C 6/23)                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-163/98
                                                                       between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                                           and designs)
Wien (Regional Court of Appeal, Vienna) (Austria) of 15 June
1999, received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1999, for a                                 (Case C-383/99 P)
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Susanna Brunnhofer v
Bank der österreichischen Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft on
the following questions:                                                                        (2000/C 6/24)
1a) With regard to the question whether work is ‘equal work’           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
    or ‘the same job’ within the meaning of Article 119 (now           the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    Article 141) of the EC Treaty or is ‘the same work’ or             European Communities in Case T-163/98 between The Procter
    ‘work to which equal value is attributed’ within the               & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the
    meaning of Directive 75/117/EEC (1), is it sufficient, in          Internal Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before
    connection with the stipulation in an individual contract          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    of employment of supplements to the pay determined by              8 October 1999 by The Procter & Gamble Company, rep-
    a collective agreement, to ascertain whether the two               resented by Thierry van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    workers being compared are classified in the same pro-             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
    fessional category under the collective agreement?                 Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 6/13
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
(1) set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First                 Centre, Kirchberg.
     Instance on 8 July 1999 in Case T-163/98 Procter &
     Gamble v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
     (trade marks and designs), inasmuch as the Court of First             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
     Instance held that the First Board of Appeal of the Office            the Court should:
     for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and
     designs) had not infringed Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation              — declare that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 5 of
     (EC) No 40/94 (1) by adopting its decision of 31 July 1998                Directive 97/33/EC (1) in conjunction with Annex I to that
     in Case R 35/1998-1;                                                      directive, and to adopt all the measures necessary in
                                                                               order to implement Article 5 of Directive 97/33/EC in
(2) order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                  conjunction with Annexes I and III to that directive, the
     (trade marks and designs) to pay the costs.                               Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under those provisions and under the Treaty establishing
                                                                               the European Community;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Infringement of Community law, in that, by the contested
judgment, the Court of First Instance applied an excessively
wide meaning to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on                  Pleas in law and main arguments
the Community trade mark: the Court of First Instance merely
found that the term ‘Baby-Dry’ simply contained, indications
which may serve in trade to designate the intended purpose of              Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
the goods concerned, without determining the question wheth-               paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty, together with Article
er that term is capable of distinguishing the goods concerned              23 of Directive 97/33/EC, Belgium was required to adopt, by
as being produced by a particular undertaking. On a proper                 no later than 31 December 1997, the measures necessary in
interpretation of the ground of nullity laid down in Article               order to comply with that directive. The Commission claims
7(1)(c), registration as an individual trade mark cannot be                that Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5
refused in respect of a sign the descriptive nature of which is            of the directive, in that it has:
such that it can only be understood as describing the product
concerned or one of its characteristics. That is the teleological          — extended the scope of services which may be financed in
or synthetic interpretation, excluding any presumption of                      respect of universal service to cover the provision of
unfitness for purpose which may affect descriptive signs,                      services at preferential rates in favour of the press media;
which has been upheld by leading case-law in various Member
States, such as the Benelux States, France and Germany, in                 — provided for a method of calculating the contributions of
which a trade mark right is not regarded as a monopoly right,                  operators to the financing of the net cost of universal
as is confirmed by, inter alia, the effect of First Council Directive          service which is incomplete and does not reflect the
88/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws                         transparency obligations defined in Article 5(1) of Directive
of the Member States relating to trade marks (2).                              97/33/EC: the decree intended to specify the method of
                                                                               calculating the net cost of universal service and the
                                                                               method of calculating the basis on which operators are to
(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
                                                                               contribute to its financing has not yet been adopted and
                                                                               published; at all events, it has not been notified to the
                                                                               Commission;
                                                                           — provided for an incorrect method of calculating the net
                                                                               cost of universal service: in particular, this does not take
                                                                               into account the ‘intangible’ benefits linked to the provision
                                                                               of universal service (thus failing to comply with Article
Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission                             5(4) of the directive); nor does it take into account all the
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             accounting principles laid down in Annex III to Directive
                              Belgium                                          97/33/EC: the concept of avoidable net cost, the taking
                                                                               into account of forecast, not historic, costs and receipts,
                                                                               the taking into account of direct and indirect receipts
                        (Case C-384/99)                                        inherent in the provision of each of the services financed
                                                                               in respect of universal service.
                          (2000/C 6/25)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its Legal


title: Case T-411/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Artisjus v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Sharing of the geographic market — Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies — Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences — Proof — Presumption of innocence)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Artisjus v Commission
   (Case T-411/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)
   2013/C 156/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Z. Hegymegi-Barakonyi, P. Vörös and M. Horányi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesület;

               2.

               Annuls Article 4(2) and (3) of that decision, to the extent that they refer to Article 3 of that decision, in so far as they concern Artisjus;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the main proceedings;

               4.

               Orders Artisjus and the Commission to each bear their own costs relating to the interim relief proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-443/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the case of H. A. Solleveld against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Amersfoort

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the case of H. A. Solleveld against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Amersfoort
   (Case C-443/04)
   (2005/C 6/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court), Third Chamber (Netherlands) of 15 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. A. Solleveld against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Amersfoort on the following question:
   Must Article 13(A)(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive (1) be construed as meaning that exemption from VAT is conferred in respect of interventions comprising the establishment of a diagnosis, the provision of therapeutic advice and possible provision of treatment, in the framework of the diagnostic treatment described in paragraphs 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 above, even where those interventions cannot be subsumed within the exercise, by the person carrying out those interventions, of a medical or paramedical profession as defined by the Member State concerned?

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 16.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 April 2003 in Case C-424/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): CS Communications & Systems Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt (Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review procedures for the award of public contracts — Action for annulment of a decision of the contracting authority — Application for interim measures — Duty or discretion of the body responsible for review procedures to take account of the prospects of success of the substantive claim — Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the answer to which does not admit of any reasonable doubt)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 213/3
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 9 April 2003
                          of 22 April 2003
                                                                             in Case C-424/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Bundesvergabeamt): CS Communications & Systems
                                                                             Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsan-
in Case C-149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge                                                        stalt (1)
    Vadé v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Public contracts — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review pro-
                                                                             cedures for the award of public contracts — Action for
(Appeals — Officials — Action become devoid of purpose                       annulment of a decision of the contracting authority —
                      — No need to adjudicate)                               Application for interim measures — Duty or discretion of
                                                                             the body responsible for review procedures to take account
                                                                             of the prospects of success of the substantive claim —
                                                                             Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
                           (2003/C 213/04)                                     answer to which does not admit of any reasonable doubt)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/05)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-424/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case 149/00 P: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé,                    by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,                     in the proceedings pending before that body between CS
residing at Brussels (lawyer: C. Amo Quiñones) — appeal                      Communications & Systems Austria GmbH and Allgemeine
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European             Unfallversicherungsanstalt on the interpretation of Article 2 of
Communities, First Chamber, of 9 February 2000 in Case                       Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
T-111/97 Valero Jordana et Vadé v Commission [2000] ECR-                     the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
SC IA-15; SC-II-61, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                   the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ
European Communities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and                        1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/
C. Berardis-Kayser) — the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,                    EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),                 for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made                the Court, composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
an order on 22 April 2003, the operative part of which is as                 President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr,
follows:                                                                     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                             made an order on 9 April 2003, the operative part of which is
                                                                             as follows:
1.    There is no need to adjudicate.
                                                                             Article 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989
                                                                             on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
2.    The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the               provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the
      costs of proceedings before both the Court of First Instance and       award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by
      the Court of Justice.                                                  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                             coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
                                                                             must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the Member
                                                                             States from providing that when a body responsible for review
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10 June 2000.                                               procedures for the award of public contracts decides an application
                                                                             for interim measures, it is bound or authorised to take account of the
                                                                             prospects of success of an application for a decision of a contracting
                                                                             authority to be set aside on the ground that it is unlawful, so long as
                                                                             the national rules thus governing the adoption of those interim
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/4                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.9.2003
measures are not less favourable than those governing similar                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
domestic actions and do not make it practically impossible or
excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by Community
law.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                                of 28 March 2003
                                                                             in Case C-75/02 P: Territorio Histórico de Áava —
                                                                             Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia
                                                                             — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, Territorio Histórico de
                                                                             Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas
                                                                             Generales de Gipuzkoa and Comunidad Autónoma del
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                     País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (Appeal — State aid — Aid in the steel sector — Action for
                           of 27 March 2003                                  annulment — Article 33 CS — Action brought by an intra-
                                                                                State authority — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
in Case C-1/02 SA: Antippas v Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/07)
(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
        the Commission of the European Communities)                                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
                            (2003/C 213/06)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-75/02 P: Territorio Histórico de Áava — Diputación
                                                                             Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación
                                                                             Foral de Bizkaia, Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputa-
In Case C-1/02 SA, Antippas, company incorporated under                      ción Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas Generales de Gipuzkoa and
Congolese law, established in Kinshasa (Democratic Republic                  Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco v
of the Congo), (avocat: M. Spandre) v Commission of the                      Commission of the European Communities (avocat: R. Falcón
European Communities (Agents: M. De Pauw and B. Mar-                         y Tella) APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance
tenczuk) — application for authorisation to serve a garnishee                of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
order on the Commission of the European Communities — the                    Composition) delivered on 11 January 2002 in Case T-77/01
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                Diputación Floral de Álava and Others v Commission [2002]
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, P. Jann S. von Bahr                          ECR II-81, by which the Court held inadmissible the action
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                   brought by the appellants against Commission Decision 2001/
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 March               168/ECSC of 31 October 2000 on Spain’ corporation tax laws
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                             (OJ 2001 L 60, p. 57), seeking to have that order set aside the
                                                                             other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and J.L. Buendía
1.    The application is dismissed.                                          Sierra) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.
                                                                             Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Gul-
                                                                             mann, F. Macken and N. Coleric, and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
2.    Antippas is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                             Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 28 March 2003, the operative part of
                                                                             which is as follows:
( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                             1.    The appeal is dismissed.


title: Case T-291/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano v OHIM — Biraghi (GRANA BIRAGHI) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark GRANA BIRAGHI — Protection of the designation of origin grana padano — Lack of generic nature — Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano v OHIM — Biraghi (GRANA BIRAGHI)
   (Case T-291/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark GRANA BIRAGHI - Protection of the designation of origin ‘grana padano’ - Lack of generic nature - Article 142 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92)
   (2007/C 247/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano (Desenzano del Garda, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani, P. Colombo and A. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Aiello, lawyer)

      The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being: Biraghi SpA, (Cavallermaggiore Italy) (represented by F. Antenucci, F. Giuggia, P. Mayer and J.-L. Schiltz, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2003 (Case R 153/2002-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano and Biraghi SpA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 June 2003 (Case R 153/2002-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Grana Padano;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic and Biraghi SpA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-468/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London Overland Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Common customs tariff — Import customs duties — Declared customs value including a buying commission — Payment of customs duty on full amount declared — Revision of the customs declaration — Conditions — Refund of customs duties paid on the buying commission)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 October 2005
   in Case C-468/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London Overland Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)

   (Common customs tariff - Import customs duties - Declared customs value including a buying commission - Payment of customs duty on full amount declared - Revision of the customs declaration - Conditions - Refund of customs duties paid on the buying commission)
   (2005/C 315/07)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-468/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), made by decision of 29 September 2003, received at the Court on 6 November 2003, in the proceedings between Overland Footwear Ltd and Commissioners of Customs & Excise — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans and J. Makarczyk, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J. Klučka, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 29, 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a buying commission included in the declared customs value and not distinguished from the sale price of the goods in the customs declaration is to be regarded as forming part of the transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of the Code and therefore dutiable.

               2.

               On a proper interpretation of Articles 78 and 236 of Regulation No 2913/92:

                           —

                           after the release of the imported goods, the customs authorities, presented with an application from the declarant seeking revision of his customs declaration in relation to those goods, are required, subject to the possibility of a subsequent court action, either to reject the application by a reasoned decision or to carry out the revision applied for;

                           —

                           where they find, at the conclusion of that revision, that the declared customs value erroneously included a buying commission, they are required to regularise the situation by reimbursing the import duties applied to that commission.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.


title: Case T-572/08 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 November 2008 in Case F-90/07 Traore v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/64

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 November 2008 in Case F-90/07 Traore v Commission
   (Case T-572/08 P)
   (2009/C 44/109)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall, G. Berscheid and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Amadou Traore (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2008 in Case F-90/07 in so far as it upheld the first plea alleging irregularity of the recruitment procedure, infringement of Articles 7(1) and 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment and eligibility for promotion, in that the level of posts was fixed at grades AD9 to AD14 in so far as it concerned the post of head of operations in Tanzania, and annulled the rejection of Mr Traore's candidature and the appointment of Mr S. to that post;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by Mr Traore before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-90/07 in so far as it was upheld by that tribunal;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the appeal and rule as required on the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this appeal, the Commission seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 13 November 2008 in Case F-90/07 Traore v Commission, in which the CST annulled the Commission's decision of 12 December 2006, rejecting Mr Traore's candidature for the post of head of operations of the Commission's delegation in Tanzania and the decision to appoint another candidate to that post, inasmuch as the level at which the post at issue was to be filled had been fixed at grades AD 9 to AD 14 (and not limited to one of the groups of two grades AD 9/AD 10, AD 11/AD 12 or AD 13/AD 14).
   In support of its appeal, the Commission adduces pleas alleging:

               —

               error of law by the CST in misinterpreting the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 in Case T-56/07 P Commission v Economidis (not yet published in the ECR), in so far as the CST erroneously limited the scope of that judgment to the case of filling a post of head of unit, whereas the same conditions applied to other AD posts, such as that at issue in this case;

               —

               infringement of the principles of respect for the general interests of the service and sound administration.


title: Case C-439/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel — Belgium lodged on 24 September 2007 — Belgische Staat v KBC Bank NV

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel — Belgium lodged on 24 September 2007 — Belgische Staat v KBC Bank NV
   (Case C-439/07)
   (2007/C 315/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Beroep te Brussel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgische Staat

      Defendant: KBC Bank NV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, in particular Article 4(1), first indent, thereof, be construed as precluding a situation in which a Member State applies the exemption relating to distributed profits received by a company of that State from its subsidiary in another Member State, except when the subsidiary is liquidated, by first including in full the distributed profits in the taxable basis and then deducting 95 % of those profits from the taxable basis but limiting the deduction to the amount of profits made in the taxable period in which the distribution of profits took place (after certain statutorily defined deductions) (Article 205(2) WIB/92 [Belgian Income Tax Code 1992] in conjunction with Article 77 KB/WIB.92 [Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992]), in view of the fact that the result of such a limitation of the deduction of distributed profits is that, if the parent company had no or insufficient taxable profits during the taxable period in which the distributed profits were received, it would in a subsequent taxable period be taxed on those distributed profits which it had received, or at least that the losses of that taxable period would be offset by means of distributed profits, 95 % of which must remain untaxed pursuant to Article 4(1), first indent, in conjunction with Article 4(2), of Directive 90/435 and that consequently those losses, in the amount of the distributed profits received, could no longer be carried forward to a subsequent taxable period?

               2.

               If the aforementioned Directive 90/435/EEC is to be construed as meaning that the Belgian rule is contrary to Article 4(1), first indent, of the Directive with regard to distributed profits received by a Belgian parent company from a subsidiary established within the EU, must it then be determined that that provision of the Directive is also incompatible with the application of the Belgian rule to distributed profits received by a Belgian parent company from a Belgian subsidiary where, as in the present case, the Belgian legislature, in transposing the Directive into Belgian law, has chosen to apply the same treatment to purely internal situations and to those governed by the Directive and has therefore aligned the Belgian legislation with the Directive also for purely internal situations?

               3.

               If Directive 90/435/EEC must be taken to mean that the Belgian rule is contrary to Article 4(1), first indent, of the Directive with regard to distributed profits received by a Belgian parent company from a subsidiary established in the EU and the Leur-Bloem judgment of the Court of Justice (Case C-28/95 Leur-Bloem [1995] ECR I-4161) is extended to cover distributed profits received from a subsidiary established in Belgium, is it then contrary to Article 56(1) EC for Belgium to continue to apply the legislative provision in question, unchanged, to dividends originating from subsidiaries established in non-member countries, on the ground that the latter dividends are then treated less favourably than domestic dividends or EU dividends?

               4.

               Does Article 43 EC preclude the application of a legislative rule of a Member State under which, for the purposes of assessment to corporation tax, the exemption of the distributed profits received during a taxable period by a company from its subsidiary established in another Member State is limited in the first Member State to the amount of the profit made in the taxable period during which the profits were distributed (after certain statutorily defined deductions), whereas a full exemption of the distributed profits would be possible if that company had set up a permanent establishment in that other Member State?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.


title: Case C-486/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol (Social policy — Framework agreements on part-time work and on fixed-term work — Disadvantageous provisions provided for by national legislation for contractual public servants working part-time, on a casual basis, or under a fixed term contract — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/9

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol
      (Case C-486/08) (1)

      (Social policy - Framework agreements on part-time work and on fixed-term work - Disadvantageous provisions provided for by national legislation for contractual public servants working part-time, on a casual basis, or under a fixed term contract - Principle of equal treatment)
      (2010/C 161/11)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Landesgericht Innsbruck

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols

         Defendant: Land Tirol

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Clause 4(1) and (2) of the Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), of Clause 4 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), and Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — National legislation governing workers employed under a private law contract excluding from its scope certain categories of workers, part-time, casual or those employed under a fixed-term contract — Disadvantageous provisions foreseen concerning the right to annual leave, for staff changing from full-time work to part-time work and for staff taking parental leave for two years — Principal of equal treatment of men and women workers, of part-time and full-time workers, and of workers employed under a fixed-term contract and workers employed under a contract of indefinite duration

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Relevant European Union law and, in particular, Clause 4.2 of the framework agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997 which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Paragraph 55(5) of the Law of the Province of Tyrol on contractual public servants (Tiroler Landes Vertragsbedienstetengesetz) of 8 November 2000, in the version in force up to 1 February 2009, under which, in the event of a change in the working hours of a worker, the amount of leave not yet taken is adjusted in such a way that a worker who reduces his working hours from full-time to part-time suffers a reduction in the right to paid annual leave he has accumulated but not been able to exercise while working full-time, or he can only take that leave with a reduced level of holiday pay.

                  2.

                  Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Paragraph 1(2)(m) of the Law of the Province of Tyrol on contractual public servants of 8 November 2000, in the version in force up to 1 February 2009, which excludes from the scope of that law workers employed under a fixed-term contract of a maximum of six months or on a casual basis.

                  3.

                  Clause 2.6 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as the last sentence of Paragraph 60 of the Law of the Province of Tyrol on contractual public servants of 8 November 2000, in the version in force up to 1 February 2009, under which workers exercising their right to parental leave of two years lose, following that leave, their right to paid annual leave accumulated during the year preceding the birth of their child.

         (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-541/12: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Wedi v OHIM — Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade (BALCO) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/29

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Wedi v OHIM — Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade (BALCO)
   (Case T-541/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 184/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wedi GmbH (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG (Herford, Germany) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2012 (Case R 2255/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG and Wedi GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and the defendant shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.