title: Case T-251/17: Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/44

         Action brought on 28 April 2017 — Robert Bosch v EUIPO (Simply. Connected.)
   (Case T-251/17)
   (2017/C 195/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Bosch GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker and M. Pemsel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Simply. Connected.’ — Application for registration No 14 814 057

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 in Case R 948/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the cost of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

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


title: Case C-477/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer v Hans Angerer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/36/EC — Article 10 — Recognition of professional qualifications — Access to the profession of architect — Titles not listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1 — Concepts of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ and ‘architect’)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer v Hans Angerer
   (Case C-477/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/36/EC - Article 10 - Recognition of professional qualifications - Access to the profession of architect - Titles not listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1 - Concepts of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’ and ‘architect’))
   (2015/C 198/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eintragungsausschuss bei der Bayerischen Architektenkammer

      Defendant: Hans Angerer

      intervening parties: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Landesanwaltschaft Bayern als Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 279/2009 of 6 April 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant wishing to benefit from the general system for recognition of evidence of training laid down in Chapter I of Title III of that directive must, in addition to holding formal qualifications not listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1 thereto, also establish the existence of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’.

               2.

               Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36, as amended by Regulation No 279/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘specific and exceptional reasons’, within the meaning of that provision, refers to the circumstances which gave rise to the fact that the applicant does not hold a formal qualification listed in Annex V, point 5.7.1, to that directive, it being understood that the applicant cannot rely on the fact that he holds professional qualifications which give him access, in his home Member State, to a profession other than that which he wishes to pursue in the host Member State.

               3.

               Article 10(c) of Directive 2005/36, as amended by Regulation No 279/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘architect’, referred to in that provision, must be defined in the light of the legislation of the host Member State and, therefore, that it does not necessarily require the applicant to have training and experience which extends not only to the technical activities of planning, supervision and implementation, but also to creative, urban planning, economic and possibly historic building conservation activities.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-641/14: Action brought on 28 August 2014 — Dellmeier/OHMI — Dell (LEXDELL)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/18

         Action brought on 28 August 2014 — Dellmeier/OHMI — Dell (LEXDELL)
   (Case T-641/14)
   2014/C 380/24
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexandra Dellmeier (München, Germany) (represented by: J. Khöber, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dell, Inc. (Round Rock, US)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal No R 0966/2013-2 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market dated 4 June 2014 regarding the opposition proceedings No B 1  698 2892 against Community Trademark Application No 008114779 ‘LEXDELL’ and reject the opposition in its entirety.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court.

               —

               Set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘LEXDELL’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 14  779.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘DELL’ registered under the No 6 4 20  641.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-367/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’, Oława v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, Warsaw

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 14 July 2015 — Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’, Oława v Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, Warsaw
   (Case C-367/15)
   (2016/C 007/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Stowarzyszenie ‘Oławska Telewizja Kablowa’, Oława

      Other party: Stowarzyszenie Filmowców Polskich, Warsaw

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the rightholder whose economic rights of copyright have been infringed may seek redress for the damage which it has incurred on the basis of general principles, or, without having to prove loss and the causal relationship between the event which infringed its rights and the loss, may seek payment of a sum of money corresponding to twice the amount of the appropriate fee, or, in the event of a culpable infringement, three times the amount of the appropriate fee, whereas Article 13 of Directive 2004/48 states that it is a judicial authority which must decide on damages by taking into account the factors listed in Article 13(1)(a), and only as an alternative in certain cases may set the damages as a lump sum, taking into consideration the elements listed in Article 13(1)(b) of that directive?

               2.

               Is the award, made at the request of a party, of damages as a pre-determined lump sum corresponding to twice or three times the amount of the appropriate fee permissible pursuant to Article 13 of the directive, regard being had to the fact that recital 26 of the preamble thereto states that it is not the aim of the directive to introduce punitive damages?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.


title: Case T-131/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/28

         Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)
   (Case T-131/06)
   (2006/C 165/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuadrado S.A. (Paterna, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2006 in Case R 329/2005-1;

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SONIA SONIA RYKIEL’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 (Community trade mark application No 1035625)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cuadrado, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited: The national trade marks ‘SONIA’ for goods in classes 24 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition with respect to the goods covered in class 25.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the mark applied for, for all goods covered by it in class 25.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(3) of Regulation No 40/94 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-466/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission (Customs Union — Importation of tuna products from El Salvador — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Application for non-recovery of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Right to good administration under Article 872a of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Error of the competent authorities not reasonably capable of being detected)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-466/14) (1)

   ((Customs Union - Importation of tuna products from El Salvador - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Application for non-recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Right to good administration under Article 872a of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Error of the competent authorities not reasonably capable of being detected))
   (2017/C 038/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by A. Rubio González, and subsequently by V. Ester Casas, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas, A. Caeiros and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2363 final of 14 April 2014 which found, in a particular case, that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount, but not for another amount (REM 02/2013), inasmuch as it concludes that the remission of the import duties of EUR 14 417 193,41 is not justified.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-664/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 December 2013 — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’ , Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/9

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 13 December 2013 — VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija
      (Case C-664/13)
      (2014/C 71/15)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellants: VAS ‘Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija’, Latvijas Republikas Satiksmes ministrija

         Respondent: K. Nīmanis

         Question referred

      Must Article 12 of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, in conjunction with the first sentence of the second recital in the preamble thereto, be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the only means of proving that a person is normally resident in that State (Latvia) is the declared residence of that person? ‘Declared residence’ must be understood as meaning the obligation of the person, in accordance with the national legislation, to be registered in a state register, in order to notify his accessibility at the declared residence for the purposes of his legal relations with the State and the local authorities.

         (1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.


title: Case C-676/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 December 2015 by The Tea Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2015 in Case T-627/13: The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/16

         Appeal brought on 15 December 2015 by The Tea Board against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2015 in Case T-627/13: The Tea Board v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-676/15 P)
   (2016/C 106/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Tea Board (represented by: M.C. Maier, A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Delta Lingerie

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 in Case T-627/13 as far as the General Court dismissed the action with respect to the following services covered by the mark applied for in Classes 35 and 38:

                  Business consultancy with regard to the creation and operation of retail outlets and central purchasing agencies for retailing and advertising purposes; Sales promotion (for others), advertising, business management, business administration, on-line advertising on a computer network, distribution of advertising material (leaflets, flyers, free newspapers, samples), arranging newspaper subscriptions for others; Business information or enquiries; organization of events and exhibitions for commercial or advertising purposes, advertising management, rental of advertising space, radio and television advertising, advertising sponsorship. (Class 35)

                  Telecommunications, computer-aided transmission of messages and images, interactive television broadcasting services relating to the presentation of products, communications by computer terminals, communications (transmissions) on the open and closed world wide web. (Class 38)

               —

               if necessary, remit the case back to the General Court,

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Action seeks the partial annulment of the judgment of the General Court in Case T-627/13 of 2 October 2015 in so far as the General Court dismissed the action with respect to services covered by the contested mark in Classes 35 and 38.

               2.

               The Action is based on two pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1) and infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.

               3.

               The Applicant is of the opinion that the essential function of a Community collective mark according to Article 66(2) CTMR, consisting of an indication which serves to designate the geographical origin of the goods covered, is not to serve as an indication of commercial origin but only to guarantee the collective origin of the goods or services offered and sold under the mark, i.e. that the products come from an undertaking which is located in the geographical region adopted as a Community collective mark and which is entitled to use the Community collective mark.

               4.

               Consequently, in the Applicant's view it must be concluded that, in the framework of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR, the geographical origin must be taken into account as a relevant factor- either when assessing the similarity of the goods and/or services at issue and/or when carrying out a global assessment of likelihood of confusion.

               5.

               Therefore, when comparing goods and/or services of an earlier Community collective mark according to Article 66(2) CTMR, consisting of geographical indication, with those of a Community individual mark, it is not, in the Applicant's opinion, decisive whether the goods and services in question are similar in regard to their nature, purpose, end users and/or distribution channels. Rather, it must be questioned whether the goods and/or services in question may have the same geographical origin.

               6.

               The Applicant's interpretation of Article 66(2) CTMR results from

                           1)

                           the inner logic of Regulation No. 207/2009, in particular the fact that

                                       i.

                                       Article 66(2) CTMR constitutes and exception within Regulation No. 207/2009 as, according to Article 7(1)(c) CTMR, trademarks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the geographical origin of the goods or of rendering of the service shall not be registered,

                                       ii.

                                       according to Article 67(2) CTMR, the regulations governing use of a Community collective trade mark consisting of geographical indication must authorise any person whose goods or services originate in the geographical area concerned to become a member of the association which is the proprietor of the mark, and consequently, a Community collective mark consisting of geographical indication is never capable of distinguishing goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings.

                           2)

                           an interpretation of that provision in the light of Regulation No. 1151/2012 (2) and in the light of the TRIPs-Agreement, according to which geographical indications should enjoy a high level of protection, and according to which presentations of a good that indicates or suggests that the good in question originates in a geographical area other than the true place of origin, in a manner which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good, should be prohibited.

               7.

               The Applicant is of the opinion that the qualities established by the General Court in connection with DARJEELING can also be transferred to services such as business consultancy or telecommunication services, and are able to strengthen the power of attraction of the contested mark in that regard. Further, the Applicant points out that the General Court did not provide any substantiated grounds in its judgment, as to why the qualities associated with the mark DARJEELING could not be transferred to services in Class 35 and 38, which, in itself is an error in law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

      OJ L 343, p. 1


title: Case C-97/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 February 2015 — Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-97/15)
   (2015/C 171/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sprengen/Pakweg Douane BV

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the last paragraph of Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 of the CN — whether or not having regard to Attachments A and B to the Information Technology Agreement — be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays described in this judgment are to be classified as ‘hard disk drives’ in subheading 8471 70 50 of the CN, even though the apparatus has features and characteristics such that it is capable of reproducing on a television set or video monitor multimedia files stored on the hard disks, after converting those files into analogue signals?

               2.

               If question 1 must be answered in the negative, must heading 8521 of the CN then be interpreted as meaning that apparatus such as the screenplays can be classified under it, even though their video reproducing function is not their specific function, but is their principal function?


title: Case C-188/04: Action brought on 22 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/2

         Action brought on 22 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-188/04)
   (2004/C 168/04)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Wiedner and G. Bambara, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, since ANAS S.p.A. awarded the concession for the construction and management of the ‘Pedemontana Veneta Ovest’ motorway to the Società per l'autostrada Brescia-Verona-Vicenza-Padova p.a., by direct concession by means of a contract signed on 7 December 1999 without prior publication of a notice, and where the requirements for such a concession were not met, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procedures for the award of public works contracts and in particular Articles 3(1) and 11(3), (6) and (7) thereof;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay to the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to the Commission, ANAS's concession relating to the construction and management of the ‘Pedemontana Veneta Ovest’ motorway without prior publication of a notice does not comply with Directive 93/37/EEC and in particular with Articles 3(1) and 11(3), (6) and (7) thereof.
   Article 3 of the Directive provides for the application of certain advertising rules at Community level where the contracting authorities conclude a public works concession contract if the value of that contract exceeds EUR 5 million. In particular, under Article 11(3) of the directive, contracting authorities wishing to award a works concession contract must make known that intention by means of a notice to be sent, pursuant to Article 11(7) of the directive, to the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Since the contract for the construction and management of the ‘Pedemontana Veneta Ovest’ motorway is worth approximately EUR 350 million, it clearly should have been the subject of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.


title: Case C-161/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia –Italy) — Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others v Acquedotto Pugliese SpA (Public procurement — Water sector — Directive 92/13/EEC — Effective and rapid review procedures — Time-limits for bringing an action — Date from which time begins to run)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia –Italy) — Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others v Acquedotto Pugliese SpA
   (Case C-161/13) (1)

   ((Public procurement - Water sector - Directive 92/13/EEC - Effective and rapid review procedures - Time-limits for bringing an action - Date from which time begins to run))
   2014/C 202/10
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox, Giovanni Putignano e figli srl, Cogeir srl, Splendor Sud srl, Sceap srl

      Defendant: Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

      Intervening parties: Tundo srl, Giovanni XXIII Soc. coop. arl

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia — Interpretation of Article 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14) — Time-limit for bringing an action — Point at which time begins to run — National legislation under which the time-limit for bringing an action begins to run with effect from the date of the notification to the applicant of the decision definitively awarding the procurement contract — Where the applicant did not become aware, until after that notification, that the rules governing the award of public procurement contracts had been infringed

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) and (3) and the last subparagraph of Article 2a(2) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the time allowed for bringing an action for the annulment of the decision awarding a contract starts to run again where the contracting authority adopts a new decision, after the award decision has been adopted but before that contract is signed, which may affect the lawfulness of that award decision. That period starts to run from the communication of the earlier decision to the tenderers or, in the absence thereof, from when they became aware of that decision.
   Where a tenderer becomes aware, after the expiry of the period for bringing an action laid down by national legislation, of an irregularity allegedly committed before the award decision was adopted, an action for the annulment of that decision may be brought only within that period, unless such a right is explicitly provided for by national law in accordance with Union law.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 May 2004 in Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/442/EEC — Environment — Management of waste)

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 27 May 2004
   in Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Environment - Management of waste)
   (2004/C 179/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Baneza (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and  F. Macken, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 May 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Bañeza (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


10.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 191/23
(and to organise any necessary strikes to that end). Conse-                     Removal from the register of Case C-178/01 (1)
quently, a possible infringement of a fundamental right (the
freedom to form an association) cannot be examined by the                                       (2002/C 191/38)
Community judicature in precisely those cases where such an
infringement concerns, in a general and abstract manner, all
potential holders of the fundamental right, i.e. where it is             By order of 18 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
based on a legislative provision.                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-178/01: Commission of the European
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Report.                      Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-357/00 (1)
                         (2002/C 191/37)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-214/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/39)
By order of 16 April 2002 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-357/00 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Bremen): Fikri            By order of 15 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Akdenk v Stadtgemeinde Bremen.                                           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-214/01: Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-60/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co. KG v José Filipe Pereira Félix (Article 49 EC — Restrictions on freedom to provide services — Undertakings in the construction sector — Subcontracting — Obligation on an undertaking to act as guarantor in respect of the minimum remuneration of workers employed by a subcontractor)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-60/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co. KG v José Filipe Pereira Félix (1)

   (Article 49 EC - Restrictions on freedom to provide services - Undertakings in the construction sector - Subcontracting - Obligation on an undertaking to act as guarantor in respect of the minimum remuneration of workers employed by a subcontractor)
   (2004/C 300/36)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-60/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 14 February 2003, in the proceedings between Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co. KG and José Filipe Pereira Félix — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 5 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, does not preclude, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, a national system whereby, when subcontracting the conduct of building work to another undertaking, a building contractor becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who has waived benefit of execution, for the obligation on that undertaking or that undertaking's subcontractors to pay the minimum wage to a worker or to pay contributions to a joint scheme for parties to a collective agreement where the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker after deduction of tax, social security contributions, payments towards the promotion of employment or other such social insurance payments (net pay), if the safeguarding of workers' pay is not the primary objective of the legislation or is merely a subsidiary objective.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-188/11: Action brought on 1 April 2011 — Chiboub v Council

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/38

         Action brought on 1 April 2011 — Chiboub v Council
   (Case T-188/11)
   2011/C 145/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Slim Ben Mohamed Hassen Ben Salah Chiboub (Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Perrot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as it adversely affects Mr CHIBOUB;

               —

               annul Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 adopted on the basis of Council Implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as it adversely affects Mr CHIBOUB;

               —

               annul Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011, adopted on the basis of Council Implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011, in so far as it adversely affects Mr CHIBOUB;

               —

               declare in consequence that the Council is to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges an infringement of fundamental rights and in particular the rights of the defence, in so far as Decision 2011/72/CFSP imposes sanctions and causes considerable damage to the applicant without his having first been heard and without his even having been able to make his point of view effectively known thereafter.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges infringement of the duty to state reasons, of the right to effective judicial protection and of the presumption of innocence, since the applicant was included in the disputed list without first being heard and without indicating the factual or legal grounds which justified such inclusion.

               3.

               The third plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment, it not being possible to accuse the applicant of misappropriation of funds for the purposes of money laundering, since those funds originated from FIFA by whom the applicant was remunerated from 2006 to 2010 under various contracts.


title: Case T-181/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2008 — Eurocopter v OHIM (STEADYCONTROL) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark STEADYCONTROL — Absolute grounds of refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2008 — Eurocopter v OHIM (STEADYCONTROL)
   (Case T-181/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark STEADYCONTROL - Absolute grounds of refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 116/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurocopter SAS (Marignane, France) (represented by: initially E. Soler Borda, subsequently R. Zeineh, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2007 (Case R 8/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark STEADYCONTROL as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Eurocopter SAS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case F-61/12: Action brought on 11 June 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/38

         Action brought on 11 June 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-61/12)
   2012/C 227/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of proposals for transfer of pension rights acquired before entering the service of the Commission on the basis of the calculation taking into account new GIP (general implementing provisions) entering into force after the applicants’ applications for transfer.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates in force when their applications for transfer of pension rights were made;

               —

               So far as necessary, annul the decisions concerning calculation of the value of their pension rights acquired before they entered the service of the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


C 122/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                           Removal from the register of Case C-373/98 (1)
         of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (2000/C 122/30)
                         (Case C-70/00)
                        (2000/C 122/28)                                 By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of               from the register of Case C-373/98: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by              European Communities v French Republic.
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Commission Directive 98/36/EC (1) of 2 June 1998
     amending Directive 96/5/EC on processed cereal-based
     foods and baby foods and baby foods for infants and
     young children (2) or, an any event, by failing to inform the             Removal from the register of Case C-161/99 (1)
     Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
     its obligations under that Directive; and,
                                                                                (2000/C 122/31)
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                        By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        from the register of Case C-161/99: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Italian Republic.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance               (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 31 December
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) OJ L 167, 12.06.1998, p. 23.
(2) Commission Directive 96/5/EC, Euratom of 16 February 1996,
    OJ L 049, 28.02.1996, p. 17.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-149/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/32)
        Removal from the register of Case C-360/98 (1)                  By order of 14 January 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                        (2000/C 122/29)                                 from the register of Case C-149/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Johannes Blachnitzky
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of               v Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal             Landesregierung.
from the register of Case C-360/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Bobigny): Bernard
Bauduin and Laurent Blondeau v SA Renault.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Case C-454/99: Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 34/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
competent national authorities must assess whether the know-                — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
ledge acquired in the host Member State, either during a course                  the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,
of study or by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order
to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking. The
same reasoning must surely apply to knowledge acquired in                   — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as
the Member State of origin.                                                      required by the relevant Community Regulations,
                                                                            — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
A company which carries out works on the territory of a
                                                                                quota was exhausted, and
Member State other than that in which it is established
provides services there. The refusal of the French authorities to
examine whether the qualifications of its employees are                     — in failing, (in 1988 only), to take sufficient measures to
equivalent to those required by French legislation and to                        prevent the mis-reporting of landings of mackerel
indicate the appropriate compensatory measures constitutes
an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, since it prevents
undertakings established in a Member State other than France                — in failing to take administrative or penal action against
from providing their services with the aid of their own                          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or
employees. The host Member State is obliged to ascertain that                    against such other person as was responsible for such
the conditions it lays down for the exercise of the profession                   infringement,
do not needlessly duplicate the equivalent legal conditions
already satisfied in the Member State of establishment.
                                                                            the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations
                                                                            imposed on it by i) article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No. 170/83(1) and of article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC)
(1) Council Directive of 18 June 1992 on a second general system            No. 2057/82 (2) (with respect to the period to 1 August
    for the recognition of professional education and training to           1987) and article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 (3)
    supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.                   (in respect of the period thereafter); ii) of article 10(2)
(2) Case C-340/89, [1991] ECR I-2357.                                       of Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 and article 11(2) of
(3) See Case C-164/94 Aranitis v Land Berlin [1996] ECR I-135,              Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87; iii) of article 9 of Regu-
    paragraph 32.                                                           lation (EEC) No. 2241/87; (iv) article 1(2) of Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) 2057/82 or article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2057/82
                                                                            or article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 in combination with
                                                                            article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83;
                                                                        2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Com-                          Pleas in law and main arguments
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                        — The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate
                                                                            detailed rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas
                         (Case C-454/99)                                    allocated to it, contrary to Article 5 (2) of Regulation
                                                                            170/83.
                          (2000/C 34/34)
                                                                        — The United Kingdom has not ensured compliance with
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article 1 of
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                 Regulations 2057/82 (as regards 1985 to 1 August 1987)
the European Communities on 30 November 1999 by the                         and 2241/87 (from 1 August 1987). These Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      imposed more specific obligations on Member States than
Mr Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Mr Keir Fitch, an                    Regulation 170/83, intended in each case to ensure
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the               compliance with the regulations in force concerning
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as               conservations and control measures.
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Member of the Legal Service of the                   — The United Kingdom, by failing to record landings of
Commission, Centre Wagner C-254, Luxembourg, pursuant
                                                                            stocks subject to TACs or Quota (1988 only), has infringed
to Article 226 EC.                                                          Article 9 of Regulation 2241/87.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             — The United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under
                                                                            Article 10 of Regulation 2057/82 or Article 11 of Regu-
1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988                lation 2241/87 to prohibit fishery provisionally when the
     and 1990                                                               quota allocated to it was deemed to have been exhausted.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/19
— The United Kingdom’s failure to take penal or administra-                laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     tive action against the skippers and vessel owners found              1996 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     not to have complied with the relevant legislation concern-           visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
     ing conservation and control measures is an infringement              the conclusions of the Commission.
     of Article 1(2) of Regulation 2057/82 as amended
     (Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 from 1 August 1987).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 of 25 January 1983 estab-
    lishing a Community system for the conservation and manage-
    ment of fishery resources, OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of
    the Member States, OJ L 220, 29.7.1982, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities OJ L 207,
    29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-466/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/36)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
of the European Communities against the United                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
                               Kingdom                                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                           Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                           (Case C-455/99)                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                            (2000/C 34/35)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        — Declare that, by failing to forward to the Commission
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          information concerning plans for the management and
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the                   disposal of waste, hazardous waste, packaging and packag-
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                   ing waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                     obligations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 of Directives
                                                                               75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC respective-
                                                                               ly (3);
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 concerning
     packaging and packaging waste, the United Kingdom has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                               The Italian Republic should have forwarded to the Commission
                                                                           the information required under Directives 75/442/EEC,
                                                                           91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC on the drawing up of plans for
                                                                           the management and disposal of waste, hazardous waste,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            packaging and packaging waste pursuant to Articles 7, 6 and
                                                                           14 thereof respectively.
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,             The Italian Republic failed to do so, nor did the Commission
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation               receive the requisite information following the reasoned
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                  opinion notified to the Italian authorities on 21 October 1998.


title: Case T-206/10: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Vesteda Groep v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to social housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting the commitments made by the Member State — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/20

         Order of the General Court of 12 June 2012 — Vesteda Groep v Commission
   (Case T-206/10) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to social housing corporations - Existing aid - Decision accepting the commitments made by the Member State - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 227/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Vesteda Groep BV (Maastricht, Netherlands) (represented by: G. van der Wal and T. Boesman, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Noë and S. Thomas, acting as Agents, assisted by H. Gilliams, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Vesteda Groep BV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-624/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/38

         Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)
   (Case T-624/11)
   2012/C 32/76
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ensto Oy (Porvoo, Finland)

      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 20 September 2011 in case R 2535/2010-2; and

               —

               Order that the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ONESTO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No W00909305

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1980242 of the figurative mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11; Community trade mark registration No 40600 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 11 and 16; Finish trade mark registration No 218071 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the community trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously found that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.


title: Case T-122/17: Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/47

         Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)
   (Case T-122/17)
   (2017/C 121/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Devin AD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEVIN’ — EU trade mark No 9 408 865

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 in Case R 579/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the Cancellation Division’s decision dated 29 January 2016 in the case No 9 559;

               —

               entirely or at least partially reject the Cancellation Applicant’s application for invalidity of the EU trade mark ‘DEVIN’ No 9408865 for all the designated goods in class 32;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               To the extent that the Board of Appeal has not infringed Article 7(1)(c), infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-124/03: Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.6.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/37
equality of treatment as regards the use of English during the             considerations are mistaken, there would be no serious
selection procedure, in addition to other alleged defects in the           social difficulties if British Energy became insolvent, and the
same procedure. The applicant also argues that insufficient                contested Decision is, therefore, in breach of paragraph 23 (c)
reasons were stated for the contested decision.                            of the Guidelines. The applicant also claims that the aid in
                                                                           question is not restricted to the amount needed to keep British
                                                                           Energy in business, because if British Energy were placed into
                                                                           administration, as provided for by English insolvency law, the
                                                                           cost of keeping it in business might be smaller. For this reason
                                                                           the applicant considers that the contested Decision is also
                                                                           contrary to paragraph 23(e) of the Guidelines. The applicant
                                                                           further claims that the contested Decision violated para-
                                                                           graph 23 (a) of the Guidelines, by failing to take into account
Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power                          that the contested aid takes the form of cash placed on deposit
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        by the government. According to the applicant these deposits
                              munities                                     remove the market risk of dealing with British Energy and are
                                                                           therefore not identical to loans or state guarantees of loans
                                                                           provided for in paragraph 23 (a) of the Guidelines. Finally, the
                          (Case T-124/03)                                  applicant contends that the defendant exceeded the limits
                                                                           placed upon the exercise of its discretion by the EC Treaty and
                                                                           the general principles of EC law in failing to take account of
                         (2003/C 135/59)
                                                                           the impact of the contested aid on the competitors of British
                                                                           Energy.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ 1999 No C 288 p. 2.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power
Limited, Selby, United Kingdom, represented by K. P. E. Lasok
QC and Ms. E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benckiser
—     Order any measures of enquiry necessary to resolve the               (España), S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      issues of fact in this case                                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
—     Annul the contested decision of 27 November 2002
      authorising State Aid NN101/02 to British Energy plc.                                         (Case T-126/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs
                                                                                (2003/C 135/60)
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
In September 2002 the United Kingdom Government awarded
a package of rescue aid to British Energy plc., one of the main
producers of electricity in the United Kingdom and a nuclear
stations operator. By the contested Decision the defendant                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
decided that this state aid was compatible with the EC Treaty.             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
The applicant, a competitor of British Energy, seeks the                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
annulment of that Decision, contending that the defendant                  14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benkiser (España), S.L., Barcelona,
breached its own Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and                  Spain represented by Ms Monica Esteve Sanz, lawyer,
Restructuring firms in difficulty ( 1). The applicant disputes the
defendant’s findings that in the absence of the aid in question
British Energy would be insolvent and have to cease operating
and that if it did so there would be serious consequences both             ALADIN Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme
for nuclear safety and for the security of power supply in                 GmbH was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
the United Kingdom. According to the applicant all these                   Appeal.


title: Case T-201/08: Action brought on 26 May 2008 — Market Watch v OHIM — Ares Trading (SEROSLIM)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/27

         Action brought on 26 May 2008 — Market Watch v OHIM — Ares Trading (SEROSLIM)
   (Case T-201/08)
   (2008/C 197/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. E. Korab, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ares Trading, SA (Aubonne, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The complaint filed by the applicant be admitted;

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2008 in case R 0805/2007-2 and the application filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requesting a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark concerned be dismissed; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SEROSLIM’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 35 — application No 4 113 321

      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: The word mark ‘SEROSTIM’ for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark 2 405 694

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all the goods in class 5 and in respect of ‘soaps, hair lotions and dentifrices’ in class 3

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the most important aspect in assessing the existence of any likelihood of confusion is the overall impression created by the two trade marks in question on the public concerned. Furthermore, the existence of a likelihood of confusion that would be relevant from the point of view of trade mark law, depends, in this connection, on a large number of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the recognition of the trade mark in question, the associations that the used or registered sign appears to be able to create, as well as the degree of similarity between the mark and the sign or between the goods and services identified.


title: Case C-124/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2015 — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-124/15)
   (2015/C 178/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Question referred

   Is the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1777/2001 of 7 September 2001 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that are used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 3 tablets (= 1  500 mg) are to be classified under subheading 3004 9000?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 240, p. 4.


title: Case T-467/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/34

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-467/15)
   (2015/C 337/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-84/10: Action brought on 22 February 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/58

         Action brought on 22 February 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission
   (Case T-84/10)
   2010/C 113/89
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli, lawyer, A. Aloia, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including a fixed amount for general costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Regione Puglia claims that the Court should annul Decision No C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006, and uphold only the provision made in Article 4 of that decision.
   In support of its claims, the Regione Puglia relies on precise objections raised by it in relation to the accuracy and validity of the complaints made against it by the Commission, and on the unlawfulness and erroneous nature of the methods used by the Commission for evaluating the results of the audits carried out in 2007 and 2009.
   More specifically, the Regione Puglia submits that the decision was taken notwithstanding that:

               —

               the checks performed by the Commission and serving as a basis for the decision were not carried out appropriately and on time;

               —

               the results arrived at by the Commission in respect of each priority and each measure, and in respect of each of the checks carried out, are not confirmed or supported by the documents lodged and examined and, in some cases, those results were obtained without the necessary consideration of the legislation applicable to the sector;

               —

               in any event, as regards methodology, the evaluations carried out are not suitable for confirming and corroborating the Commission’s conclusions, which, moreover, appear presented as self-evident in so far as they are not sufficiently reasoned and/or proved.

         Nonetheless, the Commission took no account whatsoever of:

               —

               the various results of the audits performed by the European Court of Auditors and the Ministry for the Economy and Finance of the Italian Republic;

               —

               the observations and objections submitted from time to time by the Regione Puglia in a detailed, substantiated and timely manner, in response to the complaints and requests made by the Commission; and, furthermore,

               —

               the Commission failed in its duty of cooperation which must inform the relationships between itself and the recipient of the funding, reaching decisions and making findings before it had even received and examined the responses and clarifications which it itself had sought from the Regione Puglia.


title: Case T-30/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/25

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-30/05)
   (2005/C 106/57)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by William Prym GmbH & Co. KG and Prym Consumer GmbH & Co. KG, Stolberg (Germany), represented by H.J. Meyer-Lindemann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 in Case COMP/F-1/38.338-PO/Nadeln, in so far as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, cancel the fine of EUR 30 000 000 jointly and severally imposed on the applicants or (further in the alternative) reduce it;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision, the Commission found that during the period from 10 September 1994 to 31 December 1999, the applicants and other undertakings had infringed Article 81(1) EC by particpating in concerted practices and entering into a series of formal bilateral agreements which were to be regarded as a tripartite agreement, the effect and object of which were, first, to share the European hard haberdashery market — in other words, functional market sharing between the hand sewing and special needles market, the wider markets for needles and other hard haberdashery markets — and secondly, sharing the European market for needles; in other words, geographic market sharing in the needles market.
   The application is based on three pleas in law. In the first plea the applicants allege breach of the right to a fair hearing and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicants, the defendant failed adequately to address various arguments which the applicants put forward, and it was not clear why the defendant had proceeded on the basis of a particularly serious infringement. Also, the reasons for the amount of the fine were simply in a standard form, so that the applicants could not establish whether factors favourable to them had been taken into account. Finally, the applicants argue that the defendant's reasons were subsequently corrected.
   In the second plea, the applicants refer to several allegedly material errors in the application of Article 81(1) EC. No fine could have been imposed on the first applicant because it could not be held responsible for the second applicant's conduct. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to take into account the fact that the second applicant had made a loss on the goods concerned, and that the agreement on geographic market sharing was a condition of entry of another associated undertaking into the market for suture needles, and that this agreement therefore restricted competition which would otherwise not have existed at all. Further, the defendant had misjudged the size and economic power of that other undertaking.
   The third plea concerns assessment of the fine. In the applicants' view, such a large fine amounts to a penalty akin to those that might be imposed under criminal law, for which there is insufficient authority under the provisions of Article 23(3) of the Regulation (1), since the legislature itself is required to specify in sufficient detail the particular basis on which the fine is to be assessed. In any event, the fine infringes Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003, as it amounts to more than 10 % of the total turnover of each of the two applicants and is completely disproportionate to the economic effects of the offence, as well as to the fine imposed on another associated undertaking. In addition, the applicants have been prejudiced by the arbitrary separation of the ‘hard haberdashery: needles’ case from the ‘hard haberdashery: fasteners’ case. Finally, the defendant failed to take into account various mitigating factors in the applicants' favour and to grant them a reduction in the fine for not disputing the facts.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 001, p. 1).


title: Case C-619/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Patricia Dumont de Chassart v Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS) (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 72, 78(2)(b) and 79(1)(a) — Family benefits for orphans — Aggregation of periods of insurance and employment — Periods completed by the surviving parent in another Member State — Not taken into account)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Patricia Dumont de Chassart v Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS)
   (Case C-619/11) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 72, 78(2)(b) and 79(1)(a) - Family benefits for orphans - Aggregation of periods of insurance and employment - Periods completed by the surviving parent in another Member State - Not taken into account)
   2013/C 114/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Patricia Dumont de Chassart

      Defendant: Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés (ONAFTS)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 17 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, and of Articles 72 and 79(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Allowances for orphans to be paid by the State of residence — Admissibility, as regards the principles of equality and non-discrimination, of a Community provision that makes the acquisition of entitlement to allowances conditional on the deceased parent having completed certain insurance periods but not the surviving parent — More favourable national legislation which also allows the surviving parent to benefit under rules equating periods of insurance — Less favourable treatment of workers who are surviving parents and have exercised their right to freedom of movement — Discrimination

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 72, Article 78(2)(b) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 79(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1399/1999 of 29 April 1999, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national legislation of a Member State provides that a right to benefits for orphans can be established by both the deceased parent and the surviving parent, provided that they have the status of employed persons, those provisions of European Union law require that periods of insurance and employment completed by the surviving parent in another Member State be taken into account in the aggregation of the periods necessary to acquire the right to benefits in the first of those Member States. In that regard, it is not relevant that the surviving parent cannot rely on any period of insurance or employment in that Member State during the reference period laid down by that national legislation for the acquisition of that right.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-12/06: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Deltafina v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Immunity from fines — Cooperation — Fines — Proportionality — Gravity of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Deltafina v Commission
   (Case T-12/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Immunity from fines - Cooperation - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
   2011/C 311/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Deltafina SpA (Orvieto, Italy) (represented by: R. Jacchia, A. Terranova, I. Van Bael, J.-F. Bellis and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Whelan and F. Amato, subsequently by A. Whelan and V. Di Bucci, and finally by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on Deltafina by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-398/97)

text:
C 26/4                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
to comply with the Directives referred to in the forms of             Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission
order sought by the Commission.                                       of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 35.                                                             (Case C-403/97)
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 39.
                                                                                (98/C 26/08)
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 25 November 1997 by the Commission                  Communities on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic             the European Communities represented by Hans
                         (Case C-398/97)                              Stùvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Karin Schreyer, on
                                                                      secondment to the same service under an exchange with
                           (98/C 26/07)
                                                                      national civil servants, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before             de la Cruz, of the same service, 254 Wagner Centre,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Kirchberg.
25 November 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi
and GeÂrard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as                The Commission claims that the Court should:
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                     Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Kirchberg.                                                                and administrative provisions necessary in order to
                                                                          comply with Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               1993 amending Directives 65/65/EEC, 75/318/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,                  and 75/319/EEC in respect of medicinal products (1)
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               and Council Directive 93/40/EEC of 14 June 1993
     comply with Commission Directive 94/59/EC of                         amending Directives 81/851/EEC and 81/852/EEC on
     2 December 1994 amending for the third time the                      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     Annexes to Council Directive 77/96/EEC on the                        relating to veterinary medicinal products (2) Ð with
     examination for Trichinae (Trichinelle spiralis) upon                the exception in each case of Article 1(7) Ð the
     importation from third countries of fresh meat derived               Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
     from domestic swine (1), or in any event by failing to               obligations under Article 4 of Directive 93/39/EEC
     notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed             and Article 3 of Directive 93/40/EEC,
     to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                      Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                      costs.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is
                                                                      It follows from the binding nature of directives, as laid
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      down in the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an
                                                                      Treaty, that the Member States to which a directive is
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
                                                                      addressed are obliged to transpose its provisions into
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.
                                                                      national law so that they have full practical effect from
The time-limit here passed on 1 January 1995 without the
                                                                      the expiry of the time-limit for transposition at the latest.
Italian Republic having adopted the provisions necessary
                                                                      In this case that time-limit expired on 1 January 1995 and
to comply with the Directive referred to in the forms of
                                                                      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to adopt the
order sought by the Commission.
                                                                      measures needed.
(1) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 22.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 31.