title: Case C-438/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) International Transport Workers' Federation, Finnish Seamen's Union v Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Eesti (Maritime transport — Right of establishment — Fundamental rights — Objectives of Community social policy — Collective action taken by a trade union organisation against a private undertaking — Collective agreement liable to deter an undertaking from registering a vessel under the flag of another Member State)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) International Transport Workers' Federation, Finnish Seamen's Union v Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Eesti
   (Case C-438/05) (1)

   (Maritime transport - Right of establishment - Fundamental rights - Objectives of Community social policy - Collective action taken by a trade union organisation against a private undertaking - Collective agreement liable to deter an undertaking from registering a vessel under the flag of another Member State)
   (2008/C 51/17)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: International Transport Workers' Federation, Finnish Seamen's Union

      Defendants: Viking Line ABP, OÜ Viking Line Eesti
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeals Civil Division — Interpretation of Article 43 EC and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1) — Industrial action by a trade union to compel a private undertaking to adopt a collective bargaining agreement making it pointless for that undertaking's vessels to reflag to another Member State — Applicability of Article 43 EC and/or Regulation No 4055/86 under Title XI of the EC Treaty and Case C-67/96 Albany — Whether an undertaking can rely on the provisions of Article 43 EC and/or Regulation No 4055/86 against another private person, including a trade union in respect of its industrial action.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, collective action initiated by a trade union or a group of trade unions against a private undertaking in order to induce that undertaking to enter into a collective agreement, the terms of which are liable to deter it from exercising freedom of establishment, is not excluded from the scope of that article.

               2.

               Article 43 EC is capable of conferring rights on a private undertaking which may be relied on against a trade union or an association of trade unions.

               3.

               Article 43 EC is to be interpreted to the effect that collective action such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to induce a private undertaking whose registered office is in a given Member State to enter into a collective work agreement with a trade union established in that State and to apply the terms set out in that agreement to the employees of a subsidiary of that undertaking established in another Member State, constitutes a restriction within the meaning of that article.
               That restriction may, in principle, be justified by an overriding reason of public interest, such as the protection of workers, provided that it is established that the restriction is suitable for ensuring the attainment of the legitimate objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case C-195/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Inga Rinau

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Inga Rinau
   (Case C-195/08)
   (2008/C 171/42)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Referring court
   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Inga Rinau

      Third party: Michael Rinau
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) apply for non-recognition of a judicial decision if no application has been submitted for recognition of that decision?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: how is a national court, when examining an application for non-recognition of a decision brought by a person against whom that decision is to be enforced, to apply Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, which states that ‘… Neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child shall, at this stage of the proceedings, be entitled to make any submissions on the application’?

               3.

               Is the national court which has received an application by the holder of parental responsibility for non-recognition of that part of the decision of the court of the Member State of origin requiring that that holder return to the State of origin the child staying with that holder, and in respect of which the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003 has been issued, required to examine that application on the basis of the provisions contained in Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter III of Regulation No 2201/2003, as provided for in Article 40(2) of that regulation?

               4.

               What meaning is to be attached to the condition laid down in Article 21(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (‘Without prejudice to Section 4 of this Chapter’)?

               5.

               Do the adoption of a decision that the child be returned and the issue of a certificate under Article 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003 in the court of the Member State of origin, after a court of the Member State in which the child is being unlawfully kept has taken a decision that the child be returned to his or her State of origin, comply with the objectives of and procedures under Regulation No 2201/2003?

               6.

               Does the prohibition in Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 of review of the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin mean that, if it has received an application for recognition or non-recognition of a decision of a foreign court and is unable to establish the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin and unable to identify any other grounds set out in Article 23 of Regulation No 2201/2003 as a basis for non-recognition of decisions, the national court is obliged to recognise the decision of the court of the Member State of origin ordering the child's return in the case where the court of the Member State of origin failed to observe the procedures laid down in the regulation when deciding on the issue of the child's return?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case T-298/09: Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/19

         Action brought on 22 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-298/09)
   2009/C 233/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission’s decisions to select the bids of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) Lot 1 ‘IS Development and Maintenance’ and Lot 2 ‘IS Studies, Testing, Training and Support’ (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) second contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 12 May 2009 and all further related decisions of Commission including the one to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 9 554 480;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decision to select its bids, submitted in response to a call for an open tender for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (EAC/01/2008), as second contractor in the cascade mechanism and to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principles of good administration and equal treatment as it failed to observe the exclusion criteria provided for by Articles 93(1) and 94 of the financial regulation (1) by not excluding from the tender proceeding one of the members of the winning consortium being in breach of its contractual obligations to the defendant. By doing so, the defendant infringed as well Articles 133a and 134 of the implementing rules (2).
   Second, the applicant submits that the defendant infringed Article 100(2) of the financial regulation as it failed to properly state reasons. In the applicant’s opinion, the comments given by the Commission were generic, misleading and vague.
   Third, the applicant contends that the Commission has illegally extended the validity of the tenders in violation of Article 130 of the financial regulation and in violation of the principles of good administration, transparency and equal treatment.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC,Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 111, p. 13).


title: Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo Peña Abizanda and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Case T-196/98)

text:
C 48/28              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Infringement of the internal rules regarding                      The Commission sought to justify its refusal to
competence and functioning of the European                        communicate the information at issue by relying on the
Parliament                                                        Code of conduct concerning public access to Commission
                                                                  documents and Article 7(1) and Article 9(3) of Council
                                                                  Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
Infringement of Article 2(4) of Annex VII to                      procedures for the award of public supply contracts.
the Staff Regulations and of the general
implementing provisions, as well as of
Annex V to the Staff Regulations                                  The applicant pleads in that regard breaches of the
                                                                  obligation to provide a statement of reasons and of the
                                                                  principles of equality and proportionality, as well as abuse
The applicant considers that the effect of the contested          of process and/or misuse of powers.
decision is a refusal to pay the allowance because the
calculation under Articles 5 to 9 of the general provisions
implementing the Staff Regulations was applied
incorrectly, as was Article 10 thereof. In particular, the
calculation made under Articles 5 to 9 should be annulled,
first, because the statement of reasons is inadequate and,
secondly, because the calculation is wrong in law and in          Action brought on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
fact. In the alternative, should that calculation be              Abizanda and Others v. Commission of the European
considered to be correct the applicant pleads that                                         Communities
Article 10 of the general implementing provisions should
                                                                                (Case T-196/98)
have been applied.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Scan Office
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Design S.A. against the Commission of the European
                                                                  Instance on 11 December 1998 by Eduardo PenÄa
                        Communities
                                                                  Abizanda and Others, residing in Belgium and
                      (Case T-194/98)                             Luxembourg, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                  BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and Madrid
                       (1999/C 48/60)
                                                                  Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels at
                                                                  78 Avenue d'Auderghem.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                  The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                  should:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 9 December
1998 by Scan Office Design S.A., the registered office of         Ð annul the implied Commission decision contained in
which is in Brussels, represented by Benoît Mertens, of the           the letter from the Director General of Personnel of
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar,              9 September 1998;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's
Chambers, 47 Grand-Rue.                                           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Ð annul the contested decision;                                   The annulment is sought of the letter from the
                                                                  Commission Director General of Personnel of 9 September
                                                                  1998 indicating the defendant's approval of the content of
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                  the draft Royal Decree on the transfer of rights under
                                                                  public social security schemes to the social security scheme
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                for officials of the European Communities. That approval
                                                                  will entail the adoption in the near future of legislation by
                                                                  the Spanish Government, which, in the applicants'
The Commission refused the applicant's request for                opinion, will only partially bring to an end the persistent
communication of certain information concerning the bid           infringement by the Kingdom of Spain of the provisions of
made by the successful tenderer (Frezza Belgium S.A.) in          the Staff Regulations concerning transfer to the
the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of          Community pension scheme of the rights acquired by
office furniture, in which the applicant had also                 Community officials and other servants under national
participated.                                                     schemes.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/29
As regards, specifically, the alleged infringements of              1998 by Tate & Lyle plc, represented by R. Fowler QC
Community law which will continue notwithstanding the               and A. L. Morris, with an address for service in
draft Royal Decree at issue in these proceedings, the               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
applicants mention the following:                                   Rue Goethe.
Ð the scope is limited to officials who were engaged after
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    31 December 1985, resulting in discrimination against
    those Spanish officials who began their service before
    Spain's accession;
                                                                    Ð annul Article 3 of Commission Decision of 14 October
                                                                        1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85
Ð Breach of the obligation attaching to the legislating                 (Case No IV/F-3/33.708 Ð British Sugar plc, Case No
    State by virtue of its responsibility for infringement of           IV/F-3/33.709 Ð Tate & Lyle plc, Case No
    Community law to redress the damage caused, since,                  IV/F-3/33.710 Ð Napier Brown & Company Ltd,
    in the formula laid down for calculating the actuarial              Case No IV/F-3/33.711 Ð James Budgett Sugars Ltd)
    equivalent, the retirement pension which would accrue               in so far as it concerns Tate & Lyle, and
    as at the date of joining the EC is updated to the date
    of calculation by reference to the Consumer Price
    Index prevailing in Spain during those years. In the
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
    applicants' opinion, in order to redress the damage
    caused to officials and to conform with its domestic
    legislation, the Administration should, at least, place
    them in the same situation as Spanish pensioners,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    applying to them the same enhancements as the latter
    have enjoyed over the last twelve years.
                                                                    By Article 1 of the contested Decision, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc, Tate & Lyle plc, Napier
Ð Partial breach of the obligation contained in
                                                                    Brown & Company Ltd and James Budgett Sugars Ltd
    Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations
                                                                    (the Parties') had infringed Article 85(1) by participating
    through failure to make provision for the transfer of
                                                                    in an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
    the pension rights of officials who have been
                                                                    which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
    self-employed.
                                                                    the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                    sugar in Great Britain. By Article 2, the Commission
                                                                    declared that British Sugar plc and Tate & Lyle had
Ð The Draft Royal Decree makes no reference
                                                                    infringed Article 85(1) by participating in an agreement
    whatsoever to the transfer of rights accrued during
                                                                    and/or concerted practice the object of which was to
    secondment or unpaid leave, nor does it deal with
                                                                    restrict competition by the coordination of the parties'
    transfers from the Community social security system
                                                                    pricing policy on the market for retail sugar in Great
    to a national scheme, contrary to the requirements of
                                                                    Britain. By Article 3, the Commission imposed a fine of
    Article 11(1) and (3) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                                                    ECU 39,6 million on British Sugar plc, ECU 7 million on
    Regulations.
                                                                    Tate & Lyle, ECU 1,8 million on Napier Brown &
                                                                    Company Ltd, and ECU 1,8 million on James Budgett
Ð The Draft Royal Decree, finally, infringes Article 8 of           Sugars Ltd.
    Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as it
    includes certain particulars of an actuarial nature.
                                                                    The applicant submits that the fine of ECU 7 million
                                                                    imposed on it by Article 3 of the contested Decision
                                                                    should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                    Ð the Commission, in applying the Commission's
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by Tate & Lyle plc                   Leniency Notice (1) by analogy, failed to apply it
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    correctly and imposed an excessive fine on the
                      (Case T-202/98)                                   applicant;
                       (1999/C 48/62)
                                                                    Ð contrary to the Commission's statement at
               (Language of the case: English)                          paragraph 217 of the contested Decision, the applicant
                                                                        did maintain continuous and complete cooperation
                                                                        with the Commission throughout the investigation,
An action against the Commission of the European                        and therefore fulfilled the substantive requirements of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       point (d) of Section B of the Leniency Notice, thereby
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                     meeting all the requirements of the said Section B;


title: Case C-216/11: Action brought on 10 May 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/11

         Action brought on 10 May 2011 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-216/11)
   2011/C 226/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and O. Beynet, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by using a purely quantitative criterion to assess the commercial character of the holding by individuals of manufactured tobacco from another Member State, by applying that criterion by individual vehicle (and not by person), and globally in respect of all tobacco products by purely and simply precluding the importation by individuals of tobacco products from another Member State where the quantity exceeds 2 kilograms by individual vehicle, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992, (1) and in particular Articles 8 and 9 thereof, and under Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the Commission criticises the defendant for using a purely quantitative criterion for determining the existence of an infringement, whereas the levels referred to in Article 9(2) of the abovementioned Directive 92/12 (and in Article 32(3) of Directive 2008/118 (2)) are merely guide levels and may not, in any circumstances, be the only factor to consider when determining whether the tobacco is actually held for commercial purposes or by the individual transporting it for their own use.
   In addition, the Commission states that the thresholds of 1 and 2 kg laid down by Articles 575 G and H of the General Tax Code apply to the tobacco products held (cigarettes, smoking tobacco, cigars, etc) as a whole, whereas the minimum levels provided for under the directives are cumulative guide levels, provided for in relation to each type of tobacco product.
   The applicant also states that French legislation establishes limits per vehicle, and not per person, which leads purely and simply to an accumulation of the quantities transported in the same vehicle, independently of the number of persons present in the vehicle.
   Second, the applicant relies on the infringement of Article 34 TFEU to the extent that the national provisions preclude the importation of certain quantities of tobacco products into France from another Member State, even where they are held for the individual’s own use. They therefore constitute ‘measures of equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports’ which have the objective or effect of treating goods from other Member States less favourably.
   The Commission rejects, third, the justifications relied on by the defendant relating, inter alia, to the lack of fiscal harmonisation at European level and to the necessity of ensuring the objective of protection of public health by reinforcing the fight against smoking.

      (1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-419/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Article 5 — Urban waste water treatment — Failure to identify sensitive areas)

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 158/7
1.    Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC)                 1.    Declares that, by failing to identify sensitive areas in the
      precludes an administrative authorisation procedure prior to                 intracommunal catchment area of the Autonomous Community
      acquisition of land, such as that established by the Vorarlberger            of Catalonia and the coastal waters of the Autonomous
      Grundverkehrsgesetz (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of                        Communities of the Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia, the
      23 September 1993, as amended in LGBl. 1997/85. It is for                    Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, and of the autonomous
      the national court to determine whether such a procedure is                  city of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its
      covered by the derogation established by Article 70 of the Act               obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC
      concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of                    of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;
      Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
      and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      Union is founded.
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no
      jurisdiction to answer the third question submitted.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                               of 15 May 2003
                           of 15 May 2003                                    in Case C-483/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
in Case C-419/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain ( 1)
                                                                             96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and
                                                                             the general public against the dangers arising from ionising
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                   radiation — Incomplete implementation)
Directive 91/271/EEC — Article 5 — Urban waste water
        treatment — Failure to identify sensitive areas)                                                (2003/C 158/11)
                           (2003/C 158/10)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-483/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
                                                                             and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
In Case C-419/01, Commission of the European Communities                     adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:                        the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/
identifying sensitive areas in only some regions of its territory,           Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under              for the protection of the health of workers and the general
Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991                     public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ
concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,                       1996 L 159, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
p. 40), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-                obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
chet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,                    composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                     the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                              judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-263/07 ( OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 12 )

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/46

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-263/07

      (
            ‘Official Journal of the European Union’ C 223 of 22 September 2007, p 12
         )

   (2007/C 247/74)
   The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-263/07 Estonia v Commission should read as follows:

         ‘Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Estonia v Commission
         (Case T-263/07)
         (2007/C 223/17)
         Language of the case: Estonian
         Parties

            Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by Lembit Uibo, Agent)

            Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
         Form of order sought

                     —

                     Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 4 May 2007 concerning the national greenhouse gas allocation plan submitted by Estonia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

               Pleas in law and main arguments
         The Commission's decision of 4 May 2007 concerning the national greenhouse gas allocation plan submitted by Estonia in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council should be annulled on the following grounds:

                     —

                     Infringement of Article 9(1) and (3) and Article 11(2) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the consequent exceeding of competence;

                     —

                     Manifest errors of assessment, since the Commission did not take into account correct information available to it, but relied on false assumptions which directly and essentially affected the outcome of the contested decision and the determination of the overall amount of emission allowances;

                     —

                     Infringement of Article 175(2)(c) EC, since under the EC Treaty the Commission does not have competence to adopt measures which significantly affect a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply;

                     —

                     Breach of the principle of good administration, since the Commission did not take account when taking its decision of all the essential circumstances present in the individual case and did not verify whether all the assumptions made when taking its decision were correct;

                     —

                     Breach of the obligation to state reasons.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.’


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-396/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/71)

      (Language of the case: Finnish)

   By order of 12 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

      (1)  OJ C 273 6.11.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State - Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway - External competence of the Community - Article 10 EC - Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)
   (2005/C 217/23)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-433/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Schmidt, W. Wils and A. Manville) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, and G. Schohe, Lawyer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 October 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by ratifying and implementing:

                           —

                           the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Romania on inland waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 22 October 1991,

                           —

                           the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on inland waterway transport, signed in Warsaw on 8 November 1991, and

                           —

                           the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Ukraine on inland waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 14 July 1992,

                     without consulting or cooperating with the Commission of the European Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-481/08 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte (Appeals — Community trade mark — Word mark BioVisc — Opposition filed by the proprietor of Community and international word marks PROVISC and DUOVISC — Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte
   (Case C-481/08 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark BioVisc - Opposition filed by the proprietor of Community and international word marks PROVISC and DUOVISC - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal of OHIM)
   2010/C 11/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: M. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte (represented by: H. Förster, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-106/07 Alcon v OHIM and *Acri.Tec by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community and international word marks ‘PROVISC’ and ‘DUOVISC’ for goods in Class 5 against Decision R 660/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2005 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division which refused registration of the word mark ‘BioVisc’ for goods in Class 5 in the context of the opposition filed by the applicant

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Alcon Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case C-342/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2009 by Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-151/08: Guedes — Indústria e Comércio v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/43

         Appeal brought on 26 August 2009 by Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio, SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 June 2009 in Case T-151/08: Guedes — Indústria e Comércio v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs
   (Case C-342/09 P)
   2009/C 267/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Victor Guedes — Indústria e Comércio, SA (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of 11th of June 2009 of the Court of First Instance in case T-151/08 (Related matters: decision of 16th January 2008 given in case R 986/2007-2 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market; decision of 27th April 2007 of the Trade Mars Department of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 828634), also in accordance with the applicable provisions of Community law;

               —

               Refuse the grant of the registration of Community trademark no. 3 710 597 in respect of the goods in classes 29 and 31;

               —

               Order the respondent to bear the costs of the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision given by the Trade Marks Department of the OHIM considered that some of the products in question are identical or display clear affinity among them, but deemed the conflicting trademarks to be distinct, without ascertaining the reputation of the earlier trademark ‘GALLO’.
   The Second Board of Appeal followed this finding, mentioning that, even though the reputation of the earlier trademark ‘GALLO’ was duly proved, the trademarks in question are distinct.
   The Court of First Instance of the European Communities agreed with the finding of the Board of Appeal as regards the fact that the trademarks in question display differences from a phonetic, graphic and conceptual point of view.
   The Appellant does not agree with this finding, for he considers that the trademarks GALLO and GALLECS designate products which are identical or display clear affinity and are similar.
   In fact, there are several decisions from Community instances which consider that trademarks which share the same initial elements are confusingly similar and thus cannot coexist in the market.
   Moreover, it was considered and recognised that the trademark GALLO has a reputation, which confers enhanced distinctiveness on the earlier mark in Portugal.
   Thus, there is a real possibility that the respondent would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier Portuguese trademark ‘GALLO’ of the Appellant.
   The appellant submits, therefore, that the contested judgment violates the provisions of Article 8 (l)(b) and (5) of the Community Trademark Regulation (CTMR).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Case T-24/97: Coopérative des Éleveurs de la Vendée, de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP) and Coopérative Agricole d'Éleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB)v Council of the European Union (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Intervention mechanisms - Premium for the early marketing of veal calves - Average carcase weight - Criteria for fixing the same - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/33
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            SAS, established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire, Denkavit France
                       of 15 June 1998                               SARL, established at Montreuil-Bellay (France), Sobeval
                                                                     Viande SA, established at PeÂrigueux (France), Serval SA,
in Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros v            established at Sainte-Eanne (France), Besnier Industrie
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                   SNC, established at Bourgbarre (France), Sovida SA,
                      (Taxation of costs)                            established at ChaÃteaubriand (France), Ouest EÂlevage
                                                                     SICA, established at Ploudaniel (France), Guinde SA,
                         (98/C 258/56)                               established at Montauban (France), Tarbouriech SA,
                                                                     established at Villeneuve-sur-Lot (France), Mamellor
               (Language of the case: French)                        SARL, established at Charnay-leÁs-MaÃcon (France),
                                                                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau (France),
                                                                     Collet et Compagnie SA, established at ChaÃteaubourg
In Case T-149/95 (92): Etablissements J. Richard Ducros,             (France), KermeneÂ SA, established at Saint-Jacut-du-MeneÂ
established in Paris, represented by Philippe Genin, of the          (France), and Vals SA, established at Champagne (France),
Lyons Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              represented initially by Deborah Kryvian and subsequently
the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v                          by Philippe Denesle, of the Rouen Bar, with an address for
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
initially, Jean-Paul Keppenne and, subsequently, Xavier              Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
Lewis), supported by CMF SpA and CMF Sud SpA,                        Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð application for
established at Pignatero Maggiore (Italy), represented by            annulment of Article 1(9) and (14) of Commission
Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Giuseppe                        Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, of
Scassellati-Sforzolini, of the Bologna Bar, with an address          Commission Regulation (EC) No 18/97 of 8 January 1997
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,               and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 200/97 of
Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill Ð application              31 January 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92
for taxation of costs made pursuant to the judgment                  laying down detailed rules for the application of premium
delivered by the Court of First Instance on 5 November               schemes in the beef and veal sector (respectively, OJ L 313
1997 in Case T-149/95 Ducros v Commission [1997]                     of 3.12.1996, p. 9, OJ L 5 of 9.1.1997, p. 17, and OJ L 31
ECR II-2031 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                     of 1.2.1997, p. 62) Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.                       Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-
Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura                Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                  made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative part of
Registrar, made an order on 15 June 1998, the operative              which is as follows:
part of which is as follows:
                                                                     1. The applications are dismissed as inadmissible.
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
applicant to the interveners in Case T-149/95, including             2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be
those incurred by the parties in the present proceedings,                 jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
shall be BFR 600 000.                                                     Commission.
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 June 1998
                       of 25 June 1998
                                                                     in Case T-24/97: CoopeÂrative des EÂleveurs de la VendeÂe,
in Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo                 de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP) and CoopeÂrative
SAS and Others v Commission of the European                          Agricole d'EÂleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB)v Council
                        Communities (1)                                                of the European Union (1)
(Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð                  (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium for                Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium
the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase                 for the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase
weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for                   weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for
                annulment Ð Inadmissibility)                                         annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
                         (98/C 258/57)                                                       (98/C 258/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case T-24/97: CoopeÂrative des EÂleveurs de la VendeÂe,
In Joined Cases T-20/97, T-61/97 and T-76/97: Sofivo                 de l'Anjou et du Poitou (CEVAP), established at Saint-
SAS, established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire (France), Sofivo                 Laurent-sur-SeÁvre (France), and CoopeÂrative Agricole
Production SAS, established at BreÂceÂ (France), Sovinor             d'EÂleveurs de Veaux du Bocage (CEVB), established at
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/34              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Champagne (France), represented by FrancËois Sarda, of              Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            Registrar, made an order on 30 June 1998, the operative
at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-             part of which is as follows:
Croix, v Council of the European Union (Agent: John
Carbery), supported by Commission of the European                   1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action in this
Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð application for                case.
annulment of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                  2. There is no need to adjudicate             either on the
(EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                       applications to intervene by the          Foreign Trade
market in beef and veal (OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 50)                 Association and the ConfeÂdeÂration      EuropeÂenne de
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed                 l'Industrie de la Chaussure, or on        the applicants'
of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M.                application for confidential treatment.
Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:            3. The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
                                                                        one-half of the costs of the applicants, who are
                                                                        ordered to bear the remainder thereof.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    4. The applicants to intervene are ordered to bear their
2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be               own costs.
    jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
    Council. The Commission shall bear its own costs.               (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 June 1998
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           in Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling v Office for
          (First Chamber, Extended Composition)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                       of 30 June 1998                                                        Designs) (1)
in Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear                  (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Supplies Ltd v Commission of the European                           Marks and Designs) Ð Decision of the President of the
                       Communities (1)                              Office concerning the organisation of the Boards of
                                                                    Appeal Ð Action for annulment Ð Article 173 of the EC
(Dumping Ð Textile footwear originating in the People's                               Treaty Ð Inadmissibility)
Republic of China and Indonesia Ð Commission
                                                                                (98/C 258/60)
Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty Ð
Action for annulment Ð Subsequent regulation imposing                              (Language of the case: English)
 a definitive anti-dumping duty Ð No need to adjudicate)
                        (98/C 258/59)                               In Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling, member of a Board
                                                                    of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               (Language of the case: English)                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs), residing in Alicante
                                                                    (Spain), represented by Arthur Alan Dashwood, Barrister,
                                                                    of the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by Edward
In Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear
                                                                    Lewis, Solicitors, with an address for service in
Supplies Ltd, with its registered office in Leicester (United
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22
Kingdom), Clarks International Ltd, with its registered
                                                                    Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde, against Office for Harmonisation in
office in Somerset (United Kingdom), Deichmann-Schuhe
                                                                    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Agents:
GmbH & Co. Vertriebs KG, with its registered office in
                                                                    Oreste Montalto and JoaÄo Paulo Miranda de Sousa) Ð
Essen (Germany), Groupe AndreÂ SA, with its registered
                                                                    application for annulment of Decision No ADM-97-3 of
office in Paris, Reno Versandhandel GmbH, with its
                                                                    the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the
registered office in Thaleischweiler-Froschen (Germany),
                                                                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February
Leder & Schuh AG, with its registered office in Graz
                                                                    1997 concerning the organisation of the Boards of Appeal
(Austria), represented by Alasdair Bell and Mark Powell,
                                                                    Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges;
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
                                                                    H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 1998, the
the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                    operative part of which is as follows:
Nicholas Khan) Ð application for the annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 165/97 of 28 January                  1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports of certain footwear with textile uppers originating         2. The applicant shall bear the costs.
in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia (OJ L 29
of 31.1.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court of First Instance (First            (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Case T-424/11: Action brought on 4 August 2011 — Cementos Molins v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/44

         Action brought on 4 August 2011 — Cementos Molins v Commission
   (Case T-424/11)
   2011/C 282/82
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Cementos Molins, SA (Sant Vicenç del Horts, Spain) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and M. López Garrido, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 12 January 2011 in Case No C 45/2007 (ex NN 51/2007, ex CP 9/2007) on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions implemented by Spain. (1)

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 107 TFEU.

                           —

                           In the view of the applicant, the contested decision infringes Article 107 TFEU in so far it finds that the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions, laid down in Articles 12(5) of the Spanish Corporate Tax Act (TRLIS), constitutes State aid which is incompatible with the internal market. The applicant submits that the abovementioned amortisation does not involve any advantage, does not affect intra-Community trade and is not selective.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the duty to state reasons in relation to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           This plea in law is divided into two parts, which both relate to the period during which the applicant was entitled to entertain legitimate expectations, established in Article 1(2) and (3) of the contested decision:

                                       —

                                       First part of the second plea: primarily, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant submits that that principle should protect all the beneficiaries from recuperation of the aid until the date of publication of the contested decision, since the publication of the decision to initiate proceedings is not sufficient to thwart the legitimate expectations born from the Commission's statements before the European Parliament.

                                       —

                                       Second part of the second plea: in the alternative, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the duty to state reasons. The applicant considers that the European Commission was wrong to exclude from the period during which it was entitled to entertain legitimate expectations the whole of the day of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision to initiate proceedings which led to the adoption of the contested decision. First, in accordance with Community law, the final day of a specified period should be included in that period in full and, second, the exclusion of the final day of that period, in the operative part of the contested decision, is inconsistent with the grounds for the decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of proportionality in relation to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that it is disproportionate for the Commission to require, for the application of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in the case of Article 1(4) of the contested decision, that explicit legal obstacles exist to cross-border business combinations.

      (1)  Published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 May 2011 (OJ 2011 L 135, 1)


title: Case F-99/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission
   (Case F-99/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 252/121
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Michael Ashbrook (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decisions, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, and claim for compensation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-99/10 Ashbrook and Others v Commission.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.01.2011, p. 42.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  29 September 2005  in Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to satisfy the requirements of Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC — Article 7(6) — Water intended for human consumption)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 29 September 2005
   in Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to satisfy the requirements of Annex I to Directive 80/778/EEC - Article 7(6) - Water intended for human consumption)
   (2005/C 296/04)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-251/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and G. Valero Jordana) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and M. Lois) — action brought on 11 June 2003 under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the requirements of Annex I to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7(6) and 19 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case T-62/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Infracore (PUMA)
   (Case T-62/16)
   (2016/C 118/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd (Incheon, South Korea)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word element ‘PUMA’ — EU trade mark application No 11 376 209

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 1052/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State, by order of that court of 23 April 1996 in the case of 1. Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2. Factron Technik GmbH and 3. Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde BV v. Minister for Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation (Case C-203/96)

text:
No C 247/6               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24 . 8 . 96
corresponding to the references as at 30 March 1992                         2 . In the abovementioned Long-term Plan , the principles of
multiplied by the 2,15 % rate of refund , this may only take                      self-sufficiency and proximity find specific expression in
place in parallel with an across-the-board reduction in                           the pursuit of the best possible quality method of
reference quantities of the order of 2,35 % . As a result of                      disposal ( including recovery ) and continuity of disposal .
that operation , most producers who were previously                               Does this constitute a correct implementation of those
entitled to the removal of the reduction of 2,15 % occurring                      principles ?
during the eighth period will ultimately be faced not with the
reconstitution of their reference quantities but with their                 3 . ( a ) In so far as the criteria laid down in the Long-term
further reduction . It is clear from the wording of texts                               Plan for objecting to the export of waste for
published by the Ministry of Agriculture that the reduction                             recovery are in themselves acceptable, is this then a
operation was designed as a correcting mechanism to                                     case of a measure having equivalent effect within
neutralize the intended effect of Article 2 of Regulation                               the meaning of Article 34 of the EC Treaty, and is
No 1637/91 , that is to say , the reconstitution , to a level of                        there any justification for it ?
100% , of the reference quantities of most producers .
                                                                                ( b ) In that context, if the principles of self-sufficiency
                                                                                and proximity may be applied in regard to waste
(') OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .                                              intended for recovery , does it make any difference
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 176 .                                whether those principles are applied primarily
                                                                                within the Community as a whole or exclusively at
                                                                                national level ?
                                                                            4 . Are the exclusive rights to incinerate dangerous waste
                                                                                conferred by the Netherlands authority on AVR Chemie
                                                                                CV in Sectoral Plan 10 of Part II of the Long-term Plan
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse                           compatible with Article 90 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in conjunction
Raad van State, by order of that court of 23 April 1996 in                        with Article 86 of the EC Treaty , having regard to the
the case of 1 . Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2 .                         reasons given for such conferral in the Long-term
Factron Technik GmbH and 3 . Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde                             Plan ?
BV v. Minister for Housing, Town and Country Planning
                          and Conservation                                  (') O ) No L 30 , 1993 , p . 1 .
                           ( Case C-203 /96 )                               ( 2 ) OJ No L 194 , 1975 , p . 47 .
                                                                            C ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 .
                             ( 96/C 247/ 10 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Nederlandse
Raad van State ( Council of State of the Netherlands ) of
23 April 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
14 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1 .                  Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 21 March
Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusseldorp BV, 2 . Factron Technik                   1996 in the case of E. F. Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v.
GmbH and 3 . Dusseldorp Lichtenvoorde BV v. Minister for                                              Marianne Seidel
Housing, Town and Country Planning and Conservation on                                               ( Case C-204/96 )
the following questions:
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/ 11 )
1 . ( a ) Having regard to the scheme of Regulation ( EEC )
            No 259/93 ( 1 ) of 1 February 1993 on the                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            supervision and control of shipments of wastes                  European Communities by an order of the Eighth Senate of
            within , into and out of the European Community                 the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court ) of
            and Directive 75/442/EFC ( 2 ) of 15 July 1975 on               21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
            waste , as amended by Directive 91 / 156/EEC ( '),              on 1 7 June 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of E. F.
            read in conjunction with each other, do the                     Liebelt GmbH & Co KG v. Marianne Seidel on the
            principles of self-sufficiency and proximity apply              following questions :
            solely to the shipment between Member States of
            waste for disposal or also to waste for recovery ?              1 . Is there an undertaking, business or part of a business
                                                                                within the meaning of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of
      ( b ) If the Court of Justice takes the view that                           14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of
            Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 and Directive                            the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
            75/442/EEC do not provide a basis for the                             employees' rights in the event of transfers of
            application of the principles of self-sufficiency and                 undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses ( '), on
            proximity to the shipment between Member States                       the part of the awarder of the contract or the contractor,
            of waste for recovery , can Article 130t of the EC                    if an employer does not himself perform certain
            Treaty then provide a basis for rules such as those                   activities which can be carried out only in his business
            contained in the relevant part of the Long-term Plan                  but has them done , on the basis of a service contract or
            for Disposal of Dangerous Waste of June 1993                          contract for services , by a third party who engages the
            drawn up by the Netherlands Government ?                              necessary employees and is their employer ?


title: Case T-342/14 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/42

         Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament
   (Case T-342/14 P)
   2014/C 212/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: CR (Malling, France) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014;

               —

               itself settle the dispute between the appellant and the European Parliament, by annulling the decision which the appellant challenged before the Civil Service Tribunal, in so far as that decision requires him to reimburse all the sums which he unlawfully received in respect of family allowances; or

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant contests the rejection of the objection of illegality brought against the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to respond to the appellant’s arguments as regards the disproportionate nature of the absence of any limitation period should the appointing authority be able to establish that the person concerned deliberately misled the administration with a view to obtaining payment of the sum in question.


title: Case T-70/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Audi v OHIM (Vorsprung durch Technik) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Vorsprung durch Technik — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Partial refusal to register the mark by the examiner — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Audi v OHIM (Vorsprung durch Technik)
   (Case T-70/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Vorsprung durch Technik - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Partial refusal to register the mark by the examiner - Right to a fair hearing)
   (2008/C 209/80)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Audi AG (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by: S.O. Gillert and F. Schiwek, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 237/2005-2) dismissing in part the appeal against the examiner's decision refusing registration of the word mark Vorsprung durch Technik for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 25, 28, 37 to 40 and 42
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Audi AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/41

         (2006/C 143/76)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 121, 20.5.2006

      OJ C 108, 6.5.2006

      OJ C 96, 22.4.2006

      OJ C 86, 8.4.2006

      OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

      OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-150/15: Action brought on 22 December 2015 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/30

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-150/15)
   (2016/C 383/40)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Nordh, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the EIB pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant and other decisions connected with that decision, and application for compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decisions of 13 April 2015, 12 May 2015, 16 June 2015 and 20 October 2015 pronouncing the ‘dispensation from service’ of the applicant;

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 18 June 2015 to block the applicant’s access to his e-mail and to IT connections;

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision not to give the applicant access to his salary slips and to remove him from the list of members of his staff;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 950 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and because of its failures in its duty of care and its infringements of procedural safeguards, which sum is to be paid together with interest;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-63/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Mota Alves and Others v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Mota Alves and Others v Commission
   (Case F-63/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/75)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24/11/2014, p. 61.


title: Case T-237/16: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — NI v CEPD

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/37

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — NI v CEPD
   (Case T-237/16) (1)

   (2016/C 410/67)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2005 in Case T-19/04, Metso Paper Automation Oy v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark PAPERLAB — Absolute ground for refusal of registration — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive sign)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 June 2005
   in Case T-19/04, Metso Paper Automation Oy v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark PAPERLAB - Absolute ground for refusal of registration - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Descriptive sign)
   (2005/C 205/36)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-19/04, Metso Paper Automation Oy, established in Helsinki (Finland), represented by J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (agent: S. Laitinen) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1) concerning an application for registration of the Community word mark PAPERLAB, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 22 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004


title: Case T-183/10: Action brought on 22 April 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/42

         Action brought on 22 April 2010 — Sviluppo Globale v Commission
   (Case T-183/10)
   2010/C 179/75
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Sviluppo Globale GEIE (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer, R. Sciaudone, lawyer, and A. Neri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 14 February 2010;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the Commission’s decision of 14 February 2010 by which the Commission, in its capacity as contracting authority, notified Sviluppo Globale GEIE, the applicant, that it had excluded the consortium led by it from the short list drawn up for the restricted procedure EuropeAid/129038/C/SER/SY for the supply to the Syrian Government of technical assistance services designed to facilitate decentralisation and local development.
   In support of its action for annulment, Sviluppo Globale GEIE alleges manifest error in the interpretation and application of the selection criteria laid down in the tender specifications. In particular, it argues, the Commission misapplied the selection criteria laid down in the tender specifications in respect of technical capability, thereby excluding the consortium led by Sviluppo Globale GEIE from the short list, despite the fact that it fulfilled the requirements laid down in those specifications. Such a manifest error on the part of the contracting authority can be seen clearly simply by comparing the technical capability requirements laid down for admission to the short list in question, on the one hand, with the actual technical capability of the consortium led by Sviluppo Globale GEIE, on the other.
   Moreover, and in any event, Sviluppo Globale GEIE submits that the reasons stated for the exclusionary decision of 14 February 2010 are inadequate, in that no explanation is given as to why its tender does not satisfy the selection criteria relating to technical capability as laid down in the tender specifications.


title: Case C-227/14 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2014 by LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co., Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-128/11: LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co., Ltd v European Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/19

         Appeal brought on 7 May 2014 by LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co., Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27/02/2014 in Case T-128/11: LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co., Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-227/14 P)
   2014/C 212/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: LG Display Co. Ltd, LG Display Taiwan Co., Ltd (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, F.-C. Laprévote, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               partially set aside the General Court's judgment in Case T-128/11 insofar as it dismisses its request to partially annul the Commission's decision of 8 December 2010 in Case COMP/39309;

               —

               based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Commission's decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein — to assist in that regard, LG Display submits in Annex A.2. a table with the fine calculation in different scenarios. LG Display respectfully submits in this regard that the Court of Justice possesses sufficient information to exercise its full jurisdiction;

               —

               order the Commission to pay LG Display's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               take any other measures that the Court of Justice considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first plea, LG Display disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to include LG Display's sales to its parent companies LGE and Philips in the value of sales to calculate LG Display's fine. This plea is divided into two limbs. First, the General Court erred in law, failed to provide adequate reasoning, manifestly distorted the evidence, violated LG Display's rights of defence, and failed to exercise its full jurisdiction, by holding that the Commission may include internal sales in the value of sales for the purpose of calculating the fine based merely on the fact that such sales were made on a market affected by the cartel in which LG Display was active. Second, the General Court erred in law, failed to provide adequate reasoning, manifestly distorted the evidence, and violated LG Display's rights of defence by upholding the Commission's finding that internal sales were indeed affected by the cartel.
   By its second plea, LG Display disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission correctly refused to grant LG Display partial immunity from fines for the year 2005. This plea is divided into two limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law and failed to state adequate reasons when granting the full immunity applicant a privileged position in respect of partial immunity. Second, the General Court manifestly distorted the evidence and committed an error of substantive law by refusing to grant LG Display partial immunity from fines for the period as of August 26, 2005, after which date the Commission did not have evidence provided by the immunity applicant proving LG Display's continued participation in the cartel.


title: Case T-238/10: Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/45

         Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)
   (Case T-238/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stephanie Scatizza (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S. Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2010 in case R 723/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HORSE COUTURE’, for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6030399

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

      Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 379879 of the figurative mark ‘HORSE’, for goods in class 18

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.