title: Case C-379/12 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2012 by Arav Holding Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/19

         Appeal brought on 7 August 2012 by Arav Holding Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2012 in Case T-557/10 H.Eich v OHIM — Arav (H.EICH)
   (Case C-379/12 P)
   2012/C 303/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Arav Holding Srl (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: H.Eich Srl, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Form of order sought

   Set aside in full the judgment of 19 June 2012 of the General Court of the European Union and, accordingly, uphold the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 9 September 2010, on the ground that the latter fully complied with and applied the rules laid down in the Community trade mark regulation (‘CTMR’), (1) in particular Article 8(1)(b) thereof.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal, Arav Holding Srl challenges the judgment of the General Court in question in two respects.
   First, it complains that the General Court failed to recognise the graphic, phonetic and conceptual similarity between, on the one hand, the Italian national figurative mark ‘H SILVIAN HEACH’ and the international figurative mark ‘H SILVIAN HEACH’ and, on the other, the mark ‘H.EICH’. The General Court failed to identify correctly the essential core of the mark, namely the surname and not the first name. In addition, the General Court failed to take into account the limited significance of the use of a point, which is extremely small in relation to the letters, and failed to take into consideration that the earlier trade mark is a ‘strong’ mark.
   Second, Arav Holding Srl submits that the General Court erred in finding that there was no overall likelihood of confusion between the marks resulting from their similarity and the similar uses made of them.

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


title: Case T-563/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Burden of proof — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons — Procedure by default — Application to intervene — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Anbouba v Council
   (Case T-563/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Burden of proof - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons - Procedure by default - Application to intervene - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 313/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Issam Anbouba (Homs, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and M.-M. Joséphidès, then R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), of Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), of Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and, second, application for payment of compensation for damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application for leave to intervene;

               2.

               Dismisses the application;

               3.

               Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Joined Cases C-89/10 and C-96/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — Q-Beef NV (C-89/10), Frans Bosschaert (C-96/10) v Belgische Staat (C-89/10), Belgische Staat, Vleesgroothandel Georges Goossens en Zonen NV, Slachthuizen Goossens NV (C-96/10) (National charges incompatible with EU law — Charges paid under a financial support scheme and levies declared contrary to EU law — Scheme replaced by another scheme found to be compatible — Recovery of charges improperly levied — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Duration of the limitation period — Day on which the time-limit starts to run — Claims to recover from the State and from individuals — Different time-limits)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel (Belgium)) — Q-Beef NV (C-89/10), Frans Bosschaert (C-96/10) v Belgische Staat (C-89/10), Belgische Staat, Vleesgroothandel Georges Goossens en Zonen NV, Slachthuizen Goossens NV (C-96/10)
   (Joined Cases C-89/10 and C-96/10) (1)

   (National charges incompatible with EU law - Charges paid under a financial support scheme and levies declared contrary to EU law - Scheme replaced by another scheme found to be compatible - Recovery of charges improperly levied - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Duration of the limitation period - Day on which the time-limit starts to run - Claims to recover from the State and from individuals - Different time-limits)
   2011/C 311/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Q-Beef NV (C-89/10), Frans Bosschaert (C-96/10)

      Defendants: Belgische Staat (C-89/10), Belgische Staat, Vleesgroothandel Georges Goossens en Zonen NV, Slachthuizen Goossens NV (C-96/10)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of the Community law on the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — National charges incompatible with Community law — Charges paid under a system of financial support and contributions which was declared contrary to Community law — System replaced by a new system held to be compatible — Reimbursement of charges levied but not due — Limitation period

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               EU law does not preclude, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the application of a five-year limitation period which is laid down in the national legal system for claims in respect of debts owed by the State to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid in breach of that law under a ‘hybrid system of aid and charges’.

               2.

               EU law does not preclude national legislation which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, grants an individual a longer limitation period to recover charges from an individual acting as an intermediary, to whom he unwarrantedly paid the charges and who paid them on behalf of that first individual for the benefit of the State, whereas, if that first individual had paid those charges directly to the State, the action of that individual would have been restricted by a shorter time-limit, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of sums paid but not due, on condition that the individuals acting as intermediaries may effectively bring actions against the State for sums which may have been paid on behalf of other individuals.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the Court’s finding, in a judgment following a reference for a preliminary ruling, that the retroactive nature of a national law at issue is incompatible with EU law has no bearing on the starting date of the limitation period laid down by national law in respect of claims against the State.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case F-116/07: Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Tomas v Parliament

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/65

         Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Tomas v Parliament
   (Case F-116/07)
   (2008/C 64/107)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Kerkrade, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority to dismiss the applicant to the extent that it has not been annulled by the decision to reject the complaint, or annul the decision to reject the complaint to the extent that it has not annulled the dismissal decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 as compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks annulment of the decision by which the appointing authority decided to dismiss him and compensation for the damage he suffered. In support of his action, he contends that there has been abuse of office by the appointing authority, infringement of several provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and infringement of Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, infringement of the principles applicable to the rights of the defence and to good administration and infringement of the Parliament's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case F-64/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/29

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-64/15)
   (2015/C 221/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision of 4 June 2014 to terminate the applicant’s employment contract under one of the terms of that contract.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul OHIM’s assessment, notified to the applicant by letter of OHIM of 4 June 2014, according to which the contract of the applicant, as a temporary agent at OHIM, had a notice period of six months beginning on 4 June 2014;

               —

               order OHIM, in addition, to pay the applicant damages of an appropriate amount to be determined by the Court for non-material loss that the applicant suffered because of OHIM’s abovementioned decision;

               —

               order OHIM to reinstate the applicant to her position by fully reconstituting the career path that she would otherwise have had if her contract had been continuously renewed and to compensate her the material loss that she suffered, in particular through the payment of all out-standing emoluments and all other material loss that OHIM’s unlawful conduct caused to the applicant (excluding the unemployment benefit that the applicant received);

               —

               order OHIM, in the alternative, to pay the applicant damages, in the event that on legal or factual grounds the applicant is not reinstated in her position and/or does not continue to work under the previous terms and conditions, for the material loss attributable to the unlawful termination of her contract in the amount corresponding to the difference between the salary that she actually can expect and the salary that she would have received had the contract been renewed, having regard to pension entitlements and other claims;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-330/15: Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Keil v OHIM — Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions (BasenCitrate)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/44

         Action brought on 24 June 2015 — Keil v OHIM — Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions (BasenCitrate)
   (Case T-330/15)
   (2015/C 279/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rudolf Keil (Grevenbroich, Germany) (represented by: J. Sachs, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Naturafit Diätetische Lebensmittelproduktions GmbH (Röttenbach, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BasenCitrate’ — Community trade mark No 11 120 284

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2015 in Case R 1541/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and the intervener to pay the costs, including those which were incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-435/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 August 2013 by Erich Kastenholz against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-68/11 Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/5

         Appeal brought on 2 August 2013 by Erich Kastenholz against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 June 2013 in Case T-68/11 Erich Kastenholz v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-435/13 P)
   2013/C 304/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Erich Kastenholz (represented by: L. Acker, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Qwatchme A/S

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               uphold his application for annulment of the contested decision, or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the applicant’s costs incured at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

               —

               Infringement of Article 5(1)(a) together with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 (1)

               This infringement consists of two parts:

                           —

                           failure to draw a distinction between the criteria of novelty and individual character;

                           —

                           inadmissible consideration of the colour of the design in assessing the novelty due to the registration made in black and white.

               —

               Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) together with Article 2 of Regulation No 6/2002
               This infringement consists of three parts:

                           —

                           inadequate determination of the similarities and differences of the conflicting designs;

                           —

                           inadequate weighting of the matching characteristics and of the differing characteristics;

                           —

                           inadequate reasoning of the question of individual character of the contested Community design.

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002 and of the obligation of inquiry under the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002
               This infringement consists of the following four parts:

                           —

                           incorrect finding of the General Court that an expert’s report submitted during the administrative procedure could be disregarded;

                           —

                           inadequate consideration of the expert’s report and the statement of facts to the expert’s report in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court;

                           —

                           failure to properly provide a statement of reasons in the decisions of the Board of Appeal and of the General Court in relation to the infringement of national copyright, in particular insufficient determination of the scope of national copyright protection;

                           —

                           inadequate finding by the Board of Appeal and by the General Court that it was for the applicant to explain the nature of the relevant national copyright protection in the context of Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation No 6/2002, and at the same time misinterpretation of the scope of the duties of the Board of Appeal and of the Office for Harmonisation as regards the obligation to clarify of their own motion facts and the legal situation pursuant to the first and second sentences of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Case F-59/15: Action brought on 21 April 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/48

         Action brought on 21 April 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-59/15)
   (2015/C 213/77)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to pay the severance grant requested by the applicant after his service had ended and an application for the grant of damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               order the payment of the requested severance grant, together with the interest accrued as of 26 March 2014, the date on which that grant should have been paid, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;

               —

               grant compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant, subject to being increased or decreased during the proceedings, of EUR 4  275,80, together with interest accruing from the date on which the complaint was brought (16 September 2014), calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-198/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social 1 de Benidorm (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2013 — Victor Manuel Julián Hernández and Others v Puntal Arquitectura S.L. and Others

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social 1 de Benidorm (Spain) lodged on 16 April 2013 — Victor Manuel Julián Hernández and Others v Puntal Arquitectura S.L. and Others
   (Case C-198/13)
   2013/C 189/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social de Benidorm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Victor Manuel Julián Hernández, Chems Eddine Adel, Jaime Morales Ciudad, Bartolomé Madrid Madrid, Martín Selles Orozco, Alberto Martí Juan and Said Debbaj

      Defendants: Puntal Arquitectura S.L., Obras Alteramar, S.L., Altea Diseño y Proyectos, S.L., Ángel Muñoz Sánchez, Vicente Orozco Miro and Subdelegación del Gobierno de España en Alicante

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the rules contained in Article 57 of the Workers’ Statute in conjunction with Article 116(2) of the Recast Text of the Law on Employment Procedure, which provide for the practice operated by the Kingdom of Spain of paying directly to workers, in the event of the insolvency of their employer, ‘salarios de tramitación’ falling due beyond the 60th (now the 90th) working day after the date on which the action for unfair dismissal was brought before the competent court, fall within the scope of Directive 2008/94/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in particular Articles 1(1), 2(3), 2(4), 3, 5 and 11 thereof?

               2.

               If the reply is in the affirmative, would the practice operated by the Kingdom of Spain of paying directly to workers, in the event of the insolvency of their employer, ‘salarios de tramitación’ falling due beyond the 60th (now the 90th) working day after the date on which the action for unfair dismissal was brought, but of doing so only in the case of dismissals which have been declared by a court to be unfair and not in the case of dismissals which have been declared by a court to be null and void, be regarded as being contrary to Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) and, in any event, the general principle of equality and non-discrimination under European Union law?

               3.

               In connection with the foregoing question, may a court such as the referring court refrain from applying a provision which permits the Kingdom of Spain to pay directly to workers, in the event of the insolvency of their employer, ‘salarios de tramitación’ falling due beyond the 60th (now the 90th) working day after the date on which the action for unfair dismissal was brought, but only in the case of dismissals which have been declared by a court to be unfair and not in the case of dismissals which have been declared by a court to be null and void, in circumstances where there do not appear to be any objective differences between the two types of dismissal within the context at issue (‘salarios de tramitación’)?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36.

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 June 1995 in Case T-14/93: Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Transport by rail - Legal basis for a decision - Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 - Travel agents - Sale of international tickets)

text:
22 . 7. 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 189/15
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              — Distribution of railway tickets by travel agents ) ( ) — the
                       of 30 May 1995                                Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
                                                                     composition ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President, R.
    in Case T-289/94 : Angelo Innamorati v. European                 Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. Garria-Valdecasas and C. W.
                         Parliament { l )                            Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
(Officiais — Competition — Rejection of application —                6 June 1995 , in which it:
Statement ofreasons for a decision of the selection board in
                    an open competition)                             1 , annuls Commission Decision 92/S68/EEC of
                         ( 95/C 189/30 )                                   25 November 1992 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                           Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/33.585 — Distribution
               (Language of the case: French)                              of railway tickets by travel agents);
In Case T-289/94 : Angelo Innamorati , a member of the               2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities and a candidate in open competition PE/59/A,             ( ] ) OJ No C 71 , 13 . 3 . 1993 .
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the         ( 2 ) OJ No L 366 , 15 . 12 . 1992 , p . 47.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener v.
European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio Garzôn Clariana,
Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) —
application for the annulment of the decision of the selection
board in open competition PE/59/A to award the applicant,             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the drafting test, a mark below the minimum required                                         of 8 June 1995
and not to admit him to the other tests in the competition —         in Case T-496/93 : Alain-Pierrè Allo v. Commission of the .
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of:                              European Communities ( l )
J. Biancarelli, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May           (Officials — Appointment — Appointing authority's power
                                                                     of assessment — Interests of the service — Statement of
1995 , in which it:
                                                                     reasons — Absence ofstaffreport — Effect on procedure —
                                                                     Procedure for filling middle management posts — right to a
1 , annuls the decision of the selection board in open                                              fair hearing)
     competition PE/59/A awarding the applicant a mark
     below the minimum required and refusing to admit him                                         ( 95/C 189/32 )
     to the other tests in the competition;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-496/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio, an official of the
(') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                     of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v . Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia
                                                                     and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             annulment of decisions appointing Mrs X as head of the
                        of 6 June 1995                               Commission's delegation in Romania and rejecting the
                                                                     applicant's application for that post and , second, for
in Case T-14/93 : Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer
                                                                     compensation for the material and non-material loss
      v. Commission of the European Communities (')                  suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and by
(Competition — Transport by rail — Legal basis for a                 reason of the absence from his personnel file of his staff
decision — Regulation (EEC) No 1 01 7/68 — Travel agents             report for the period 1989 to 1991 at the time when the
               — Sale of international tickets)                      applications for the post in question were considered — the
                         ( 95/C 189/31 )                             Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of B.
                                                                     Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
                                                                     Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
               (Language of the case: French)                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which
                                                                     it:
In Case T-14/93 : Union Internationale de Chemins de Fer,
having its head office in Paris, represented by Chantai              1 , dismisses the action;
Momège, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European                    2 , orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Communities ( Agents : Bernd Langeheine and Géraud de
Bergues ) — application for the annulment of Commission              f 1 ) OJ No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
Decision 92/568/EEC of 25 November 1992 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/33.585


title: Case C-473/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Development of the Community’s railways — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure — Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-473/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Development of the Community’s railways - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure - Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC - Incomplete transposition)
   2013/C 114/04
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, B. Simon and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, G. Koós and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland, (represented by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and M. Laszuk, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 4(2), 6(1) and (2), 7(3), 11 and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to bring into force all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(1) and (2) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, Hungary has failed to comply with its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-15/16: Action brought on 14 January 2016 — Pandalis v OHIM– LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/25

         Action brought on 14 January 2016 — Pandalis v OHIM– LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)
   (Case T-15/16)
   (2016/C 090/33)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cystus’ — Community mark No 1 273 119

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2015 in Case R 2839/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision relating to Invalidity proceedings No 8374 C and Community mark No 1 273 119 ‘Cystus’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) thereof;

               —

               Misuse of powers;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-107/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/26

         Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council
   (Case T-107/15)
   (2015/C 171/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 (2) insofar as they apply to the applicant (including the entry of the applicant in entry b) 9 of the Annex to Decision 2014/862/CFSP);

               —

               insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of the applicant’s designation, as it was required to do, and has erred in law in following the decision of the UN Sanctions Committee without undertaking any EU-level assessment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or the applicant’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in the applicant’s case. In particular, there is no basis for alleging that the applicant has breached the arms embargo and the Council cannot and/or has failed to establish any relevant matters set out in its statement of reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s procedural rights and in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection, by inter alia failing to provide the applicant with the material on which its designation was maintained prior to the passing of Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014, and by failing to give adequate reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is in any event in breach with its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP of 1 December 2014 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 346, p. 36).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 of 1 December 2014 implementing Article 9(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 346, p. 3).


title: Case T-263/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/19

         Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Bopp v OHIM (Octagon with green sides)
   (Case T-263/11)
   2011/C 238/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by C. Russ, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 March 2011 in Case R 605/2010-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of an octagon with green sides — application No 8 248 965.

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive on account of the identifiable, spatial representation.


title: Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 2009 — CFCMCEE v OHIM (P@YWEB CARD and PAYWEB CARD) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community word marks P@YWEB/email CARD and PAYWEB CARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Partial lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 2009 — CFCMCEE v OHIM (P@YWEB CARD and PAYWEB CARD)
   (Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks P@YWEB/email CARD and PAYWEB CARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Partial lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 153/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, J. Schouman and L. Paudrat, lawyers.)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2007 (Case R 119/2007-1) and 12 September 2007 (Case R 120/2007-1) concerning applications for registration of the word signs P@YWEB CARD and PAYWEB CARD as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 10 July 2007 (Case R 119/2007-1) and 12 September 2007 (Case R 120/2007-1) to the extent that they refuse the registration as Community trade marks of the word signs P@YWEB CARD and PAYWEB CARD for photographic, cinematographic, signalling, checking (supervision) apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; recording discs; electronic notebooks; automatic vending machines, video tapes. distributors of banknotes, slips, bank statements and extract bank statements, cameras (cinematographic apparatus) video cameras, video cassettes, CD-ROMS, bar code readers, compact discs (audio-video), optical compact discs, counterfeit money detectors, floppy discs, magnetic data carriers, optical data carriers, video screens, data processing apparatus, intercommunication apparatus, interfaces (IT), readers (IT), software (recorded programs), monitors (computer programs), computers, computer input and output devices, recorded computer programmes, recorded operating system programs (for computers), radiotelephones, receivers (audio, video), telephone apparatus, television apparatus, apparatus for time recording, transmitters (telecommunications), central processing units (processors) within Class 9 and certain information (news) services inter alia in the banking sector, radiotelephonic communications, telephone communications, sending of telegrams, transmission of telegrams, broadcasting of television programmes, radiotelephonic transmissions, television transmissions, renting of telecommunication apparatus, renting of apparatus for transmission of messages, rental of telephones, mobile radiotelephony, telephone services within Class 38 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre Est Europe (CFCMCEE) and OHIM to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case F-40/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/28

         Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Baudelet-Leclaire v Commission
   (Case F-40/07)
   (2007/C 129/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Cécile Baudelet-Leclaire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Korving, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that there has been discrimination between candidates ‘internal ’to the European institutions and external candidates in Competition EPSO/AST/7/05 (1);

               —

               Declare that the defendant has produced no evidence of the absence of discrimination between candidates ‘internal ’to the European institutions and external candidates in that competition;

               —

               Annul the said competition on the ground of a breach of the fundamental principle of equal opportunity between the candidates;

               —

               In the alternative, order the defendant to produce evidence including, if necessary, the proceedings of the selection board covered by the obligation of secrecy contained in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, showing that the selection board did not favour certain candidates on account of their professional background;

               —

               In the absence of evidence produced by the defendant, order a revision of the classification of all candidates on the sole basis of merit, as indicated in the competition notice and as required by the impartial application of the principle of equal opportunity between candidates;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By letter of 29 January 2007, the applicant was informed that her name was not on the reserve list inasmuch as the marks she had obtained, although above the required minimum, were not among the 110 highest marks awarded.
   In support of her application, the applicant relies, in particular, on a breach of the principle of equal opportunity, inasmuch as the selection board discriminated between candidates in favour of those who already had work experience in the Community institutions, in particular in the directorate general to which the president of the selection board belongs.

      (1)  OJ 2005 C 178, p. 22.


title: Removal from the register of T-161/96

text:
No C 181 /22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Gregorio Valero                           Commission's decision of 27 December 1996 rejecting
Jordana and Serge Vade against the Commission of the                        the complaint made by the applicant against the
                     European Communities                                    former decision, .
                          ( Case T-l 11 /97)                            — declare that the applicant is entitled to revision of his
                            ( 97/C 181 /45 )                                 initial classification, as requested in his written
                                                                            communication of 30 April 1996,
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             sum of one ecu by way of damages for the non
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             material damage which it has caused him,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997
by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, and                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses
Serge Vade, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                           arising from these proceedings .
Carlos Amo Quinones, of the Madrid Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Carlos Amo, 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Case T-16/97 0 ).
— annul the decision adopted on 27 December 1996                        (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
    by the Commission of the European Communities,
    rejecting the applicants' complaints of 13 and
     17 September 1996,
— annul the decisions adopted by the Directorate                                  Removal from the register of T-3 12/94 ( 1 )
     General for Personnel and Administration on 2 June
     1992 ( No 3678 ) and 1 March 1990 ( No 1269 ), albeit                                         ( 97/C 181 /47 )
     only in so far as those decisions appoint the applicants                           (Language of the case: English)
    to Grade 7;
                                                                        By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Third
— in the alternative, annul the act published in the                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    Administrative Notices of 18 and 28 June 1996                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
    whereby an unspecified administrative body                          removal from the register of Case T-3 12/94 : CEPI
     interpreted the decision adopted by the Commission of              Cartonboard v. Commission of the European
    the European Communities on 7 February 1996 and                     Communities .
    the application of that decision of the Commission to
     Gregorio Valero Jordana,                                           O OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                             Removal from the register of T-l 3 8/96 (')
Case T-l 6/9 7 (').                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /48 )
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Action brought on 21 April 1997 by Miguel Diaz-Llanos                   Case T-138/96 :       Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
La Roche against the Commission of the European                         Justice of the European Communities.
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-124/97 )                             (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                            ( 97/C 181 /46 )
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European                                   Removal from the register of T-l 6 1/96 ( ] )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  ( 97/C 181 /49 )
Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1997
by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La Roche, residing in Brussels,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Edmundo Angulo Rodriguez, of the                         By order of 18 March 1997 the President of the First
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
care of Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Brabant .                                                               Case T-161 /96 : Gundolf Bosetti v. Commission of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission, as
                                                                        (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     appointing authority, on 14 June 1996 , by which it
     decided not to reclassify the applicant in step, and the


title: Case C-47/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
21.4.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/11
      Is Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive to be interpreted as           Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
      meaning that the information on the identification of the           the European Communities against Beta Television SpA
      competitor must be restricted to the extent absolutely                                    (Videomusic/TMC2)
      necessary and it is therefore not permitted if, in addition
      to the competitor’s name, its company logo (if it exists)
      and its shop are shown?                                                                      (Case C-51/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/17)
(1) OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.
(2) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.                                                 An action against Beta Television SpA (Videomusic/TMC2)
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin,
                                                                          assisted by Massimo Moretto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of                              382 312, together with interest as from 14 July 1999
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                           until actual payment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            (Case C-47/01)
                           (2001/C 118/16)                                Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                 The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-              the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   Contract No 70320, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for               context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                high-definition television programmes in Europe.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               broadcast only 6 hours and 34 minutes of programmes in
                                                                          16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
                                                                          for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
—     declare that, by failing to draw up or, in any event,               contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
      communicate to the Commission, the plan, outline or                 the defendant.
      inventory summary required by Articles 4(1) and 11 of
      Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on
      the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
      nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against TV Internazionale
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                         SpA
The pleas in law and main arguments relied on are set out in                                       (Case C-52/01)
the application.
                                                                                (2001/C 118/18)
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 An action against TV Internazionale SpA was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Bernard Mongin, assisted by Massimo Moretto,
                                                                          avvocato.


title: Case C-211/08: Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/12

         Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-211/08)
   (2008/C 197/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by refusing persons entitled under the Spanish Sistema Nacional de Salud (National health system) reimbursement of medical costs incurred by them in another Member State in the event of hospital treatment received in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) (‘Regulation 1408/71’), in so far as the level of cover applicable in the Member State in which that treatment is given is lower than that provided for in Spanish legislation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Spanish legislation on social security matters provides that hospital benefits covered by the Sistema Nacional de Salud must be provided by its own system, except in very exceptional cases of ‘urgent, immediate health assistance which is essential’. As a result, when a person entitled under the Spanish Sistema Nacional de Salud moves temporarily to another Member State and, during that stay, receives assistance in hospital which is necessary from the medical point of view in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Regulation 1408/71, the costs incurred by him are not reimbursed by the Spanish authorities.

               2.

               When the level of cover of hospital costs applicable under the rules of another Member State is less favourable than that provided under Spanish legislation, the refusal of the Spanish authorities to reimburse the difference may dissuade persons entitled under the Sistema Nacional de Salud to move to that Member State in order to receive non-medical services (for example, educational or tourist services) or, in the case of persons entitled who have already moved, induce them to return sooner in order to receive free hospital treatment in Spain. The Spanish provision at issue may therefore restrict both the provision of those various medical services which initially motivate the temporary move of a person entitled to another Member State, and the subsequent provision of medical services in that Member State in accordance with Article 22(1)(a)(i) of Regulation 1408/71.

               3.

               Those restrictions on the freedom to provide services are not justified under the Treaty. In particular, the Spanish authorities have not proved that those restrictions are necessary to avoid seriously undermining the financial balance of the Spanish Sistema Nacional de Salud. Accordingly, the provision at issue infringes Article 49 EC.

      (1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 May 2013 in Case E-12/12 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC)

text:
               26.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 15 May 2013
   in Case E-12/12
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC)
   2013/C 277/06
   In Case E-12/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 May 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing within the time limit prescribed to adopt the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, or to notify ESA thereof, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-583/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/29

         Action brought on 12 November 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-583/15)
   (2016/C 038/42)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra Andrade and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to create its national electronic register of road transport undertakings and interconnecting it with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

               —

               order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009 provides that each Member State is to keep a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which have been authorised by the competent national authority to engage in the occupation of road transport operator.
   Article 16(1) establishes that the data contained in the register, in particular the mandatory data referred to in Article 16(2), must be processed under the supervision of a public authority designated for that purpose. That data must be accessible to all the competent authorities of the Member State in question.
   However, it is apparent from the answer given by the Portuguese State to the additional letter of formal notice that the Portuguese Administration has not yet succeeded in obtaining an agreement among the three national authorities involved in the system, namely the Autoridade Nacional de Segurança Rodoviária (National Road Safety Authority), the Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (Employment Conditions Authority) and the Direção-Geral da Administração da Justiça (Directorate-General for the Administration of Justice).
   Accordingly, not only is there no national register, as individual registers run by three national authorities continue to operate, but the data in question are not accessible to the competent authorities of the Portuguese State.
   It follows that the Portuguese State has failed to comply with Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009.
   Under Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009, the Member States are required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the national electronic registers are interconnected and accessible throughout the European Union.
   As it does not even have a national register, there can be no doubt that the Portuguese Administration has not taken the measures necessary to interconnect its national register (which it does not have) with other national registers.
   That being the case, the Portuguese State has failed to comply with Article 16(5) of Regulation No 1071/2009.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 300, p. 51.


title: Case T-448/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Golden Balls Ltd v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GOLDEN BALLS — Earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for annulment filed by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Articles 8(5), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Golden Balls Ltd v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)
   (Case T-448/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOLDEN BALLS - Earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action - Articles 8(5), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 336/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and S. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Intra-Presse (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (P. Péters, T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2011 (R 1432/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Intra-Presse and Golden Balls Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls point 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 June 2011 (Case R 1432/2010-1);

               2.

               Rejects the application for annulment submitted by Intra-Presse;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Golden Balls Ltd, with the exception of the latter’s costs concerning the application for annulment based on Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure;

               4.

               Orders Intra-Presse to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Golden Balls Ltd concerning the application for annulment based on Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-603/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Pelati d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States — Article 11(1)(a) — National legislation under which authorisation must be obtained for the grant of tax advantages — Application for authorisation to be made at least 30 days before the proposed operation is effected)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Pelati d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-603/10) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - National legislation under which authorisation must be obtained for the grant of tax advantages - Application for authorisation to be made at least 30 days before the proposed operation is effected)
   2012/C 379/08
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pelati d.o.o.

      Defendant: Republika Slovenija

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Interpretation of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1) — Article 11(1)(a) — Tax advantages in connection with division — National legislation setting a time-limit for submitting applications for those advantages — Refusal of the tax advantages in question because of non-compliance with the time-limit — Compatibility of the refusal with the directive in question

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the grant of the tax advantages applicable to a division in accordance with that directive is subject to the condition that the application relating to that operation is submitted within a specified period. However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the details of the implementation of that period, and more particularly the determination of its starting-point of the period, are sufficiently precise, clear and foreseeable to enable taxpayers to ascertain their rights and to ensure that they are in a position to enjoy the tax advantages provided for by that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-51/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari (Appeals — Common organisation of the market in wine — Aid for distillation — Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari
   (Case C-51/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Common organisation of the market in wine - Aid for distillation - Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run)
   (2008/C 223/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. rl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. rl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. rl, Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. rl Monti-Sassari (represented by: C. Dore and G. Dore, avvocati)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2004 in Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. Coop. and Others v Commission ordering the Commission to compensate the applicants for damage incurred as a result of Decision No VI B-I-3 M 4/97PVP of 31 July 1998 rejecting the applicants' requests for the payment of distillation aid for 1982/1983
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T 166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission to the extent to which it declared admissible the action to establish non-contractual liability brought by Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl and Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to make good the damage suffered by them as a result of the insolvency of Distilleria Agricola Industriale di Terralba by reason of the absence of a procedure capable of guaranteeing, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 of 15 September 1982 laying down provisions concerning preventive distillation for the 1982/1983 wine year, payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for by that regulation.

               2.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-166/98.

               3.

               Orders Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl and Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-89/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark R — Earlier national figurative mark R — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/75

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)
   (Case T-89/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark R - Earlier national figurative mark R - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/167
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ajuntament de Roses (Roses, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 (Case R 1815/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ajuntament de Roses and Repsol YPF, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Repsol YPF, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case C-0336/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Départemental des Pensions Militaires du Morbihan by order of that court of  7 September 2005  in Ameur Echouikh v Secrétaire d'État aux Anciens Combatants

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Départemental des Pensions Militaires du Morbihan by order of that court of 7 September 2005 in Ameur Echouikh v Secrétaire d'État aux Anciens Combatants
   (Case C-0336/05)
   (2005/C 296/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Départemental Des Pensions Militaires de Morbihan (Armed Services Pensions Tribunal for the Department of Morbihan) of 7 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Ameur Echouikh and the Secrétaire D' Etat aux Anciens Combatants on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 64 and 65 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 26 February 1996, have direct effect ?

               2.

               If, for whatever reason, the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement is not found to be applicable in the present case, are Articles 40 to 42 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976, which the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement is intended to replace, to be regarded as having direct effect ?

               3.

               Does a Moroccan national who has served in a Member State's armed forces, including service beyond that State's territorial boundaries, fall within the category of ‘workers’ within the meaning of Articles 64 and 65 of the above-mentioned 1996 Euro-Mediterranean Agreement and within the meaning of Articles 40 to 42 of the above-mentioned 1976 Cooperation Agreement?

               4.

               Irrespective of whether the provisions of the above-mentioned Agreements signed with the Kingdom of Morocco in 1976 and 1996 are directly effective, can a Moroccan national, provided that he falls within the category of ‘workers’ within the meaning of these provisions in the Community legal order, invoke the direct applicability of the general principle of non-discrimination based on nationality enshrined in Article 12 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms?

               5.

               Does an armed services invalidity pension claimed by a Moroccan national who has served in the armed forces of a Member State in respect of the sequelae of an accident or illness occurring in the course of such military service fall within the category of remuneration for work covered by Article 64 of the above-mentioned 1996 Euro-Mediterranean Agreement or within the category of social security benefits covered by Article 65 of that Agreement ?

               6.

               Do Articles 64 and 65 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part, signed in Brussels on 26 February 1996 and, prior to the entry into force of that Agreement, Articles 40 to 42 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976, or, failing that, Article 12 (formerly Article 6) of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, preclude a Member State from relying on restrictive provisions in its national legislation connected to the nationality of a Moroccan national in order to:

                           —

                           refuse to grant him an armed services invalidity pension that it would have granted, without that restriction, to its own nationals who, like him, are permanently resident in its territory, and who find themselves in the same position as him, having served in the armed forces of that Member State in the same circumstances as him?

                           —

                           apply to him different conditions from those it applies to its own nationals with regard to the granting, method of calculation and duration of armed services pensions intended to compensate for the sequelae of accidents or illnesses arising in the course of service in its armed forces?

               7.

               Does the fact that the person concerned was not working at the time when he made his pension claim and that the accident or illness on which this claim is based arose whilst he was formerly engaged in active military service, namely between 19 August 1949 and 16 August 1964, outside the territorial boundaries of the Member State he was serving in the capacity of a soldier, namely in Saigon, affect the replies to the preceding questions?


title: Case T-579/08: Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Eridania Sadam v Commission (State aid — Measures by the Italian authorities aimed at compensating for the losses suffered by the sugar refinery Villasor (Italy) following a drought — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — Eridania Sadam v Commission
   (Case T-579/08) (1)

   (State aid - Measures by the Italian authorities aimed at compensating for the losses suffered by the sugar refinery Villasor (Italy) following a drought - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Obligation to state reasons - Guidelines for State aid in the agricultural sector)
   2011/C 355/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Eridania Sadam SpA (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, I. Perego, B. Amabile and M. Serpone, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Rossi and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/704/EC of 16 July 2008 relating to State aid C 29/2004 (ex N 328/2003) that Italy is considering granting to the Villasor sugar refinery owned by Sadam ISZ (OJ 2009 L 244, p. 10).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Eridania SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-627/16: Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu — Portugal) — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu — Portugal) — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial
   (Case C-627/16) (1)

   (2017/C 202/24)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.


title: Case T-16/10: Order of the General Court of 18 October 2010 — Alisei v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/58

         Order of the General Court of 18 October 2010 — Alisei v Commission
   (Case T-16/10) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/114
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  13 December 2005  in Case C-411/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz in proceedings against SEVIC Systems AG (Freedom of establishment — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Cross-border mergers — Refusal of registration in the national commercial register — Compatibility)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 13 December 2005
   in Case C-411/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz in proceedings against SEVIC Systems AG (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Cross-border mergers - Refusal of registration in the national commercial register - Compatibility)
   (2006/C 36/08)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-411/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Koblenz (Germany), made by decision of 16 September 2003, received at the Court on 2 October 2003, in proceedings against SEVIC Systems AG — the Court (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers; C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and A. Borg Barthet Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude registration in the national commercial register of the merger by dissolution without liquidation of one company and transfer of the whole of its assets to another company from being refused in general in a Member State where one of the two companies is established in another Member State, whereas such registration is possible, on compliance with certain conditions, where the two companies participating in the merger are both established in the territory of the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-706/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — TUI Deutschland GmbH v OHIM — Infinity Real Estate & Project Development (Sensimar)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/14

         Action brought on 24 December 2013 — TUI Deutschland GmbH v OHIM — Infinity Real Estate & Project Development (Sensimar)
   (Case T-706/13)
   2014/C 61/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TUI Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Infinity Real Estate & Project Development GmbH (Rantum/Sylt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1476/2012-1;

               —

               reject the opposition to the applicant’s Community trade mark registration No 7 212 889;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs relating to the cancellation proceedings, the appeal proceedings and this action before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Sensimar’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 7 212 889

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Infinity Real Estate & Project Development GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks ‘SANSIBAR’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 35 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-38/15: Action brought on 2 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/10

         Action brought on 2 February 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-38/15)
   (2015/C 127/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations:

                           —

                           under Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, in relation to the agglomeration of Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu (Galicia); and

                           —

                           under Article 5(2) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment in relation to the agglomerations of Bollulos Par del Condado; Abrera; Berga; Capellades; Figueres; El Terri (Banyoles) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Following an investigation carried out in the context of infringement procedure 2002/2123, the European Commission, by a letter of formal notice of 19 December 2003, drew the Kingdom of Spain’s attention to its duty to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5 6 and 14 of Directive 91/271, in particular as regards the treatment of urban waste water in ‘sensitive areas’.
   The subject-matter of the proceedings has been reduced as Spain has brought the sanitation, treatment and waste facilities of certain agglomerations into compliance. Nevertheless, at the time of bringing the application the infringement of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive continues in respect of the situation of the agglomerations of Bollulos Par del Condado (in the Autonomous Community of Andalucia); Abrera, Berga, Capellades, Figueres and El Terri-Banyoles (in the Autonomous Community of Cataluña) and Pontevedra-Marín-Poio-Bueu (in the Autonomous Community of Galicia).

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.