title: Appeal brought on 7 October 1998 by Ca' Pasta Srl against the order made on 16 July 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-274/97 between Ca' Pasta Srl and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-359/98 P)

text:
C 378/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
1. In the light of the Judgment and Orders of the High              Appeal brought on 7 October 1998 by Ca' Pasta Srl
     Court of Ireland dated 28th May 1992 the decision of           against the order made on 16 July 1998 by the Third
     the Commission of the European Communities dated               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     11th March 1998 (1) and the applications by Van Den            Communities in Case T-274/97 between Ca' Pasta Srl and
     Bergh Foods Limited pursuant to Articles 173, 185                       Commission of the European Communities
     and 186 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                                (Case C-359/98 P)
     Economic Community (EC Treaty') to annul and
     suspend the latter decision:                                                           (98/C 378/15)
     (a) Does the obligation of sincere cooperation with
         the Commission as expounded by the Court of                An appeal against the order made on 16 July 1998 by the
         Justice require the Supreme Court to stay the              Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
         instant proceedings pending the disposal of the            European Communities in Case T-274/97 between Ca'
         appeal to the Court of First Instance against the          Pasta Srl and Commission of the European Communities
         aforesaid decision of the Commission and any               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
         subsequent appeal to the Court of Justice?                 Communities on 7 October 1998 by Ca' Pasta Srl, whose
                                                                    registered office is in Padua (Italy), represented by Paolo
                                                                    Piva, of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the
     (b) Does a decision of the Commission which is                 Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
         addressed to an individual party (and which is the         Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 7 Val Ste Croix.
         subject of an application for annulment and
         suspension by that party) declaring such party's
         freezer cabinet agreement to be contrary to                The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should: set
         Article 85(1) and/or Article 86 of the EC Treaty           aside as unlawful the order of the Court of First Instance,
         thereby prevent such party from seeking to uphold          Third Chamber, of 16 July 1998 and in consequence annul
         a contrary Judgment of the national Court in that          the measure complained of in the application at first
         party's favour on the same or similar issues under         instance.
         Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty where that
         decision of the national court is appealed to the
         national Court of final appeal?
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Questions 2 and 3 only arise in the event of a negative
                                                                    1. Breach of general principles relating to proceedings
answer to question 1(a)
                                                                        brought against decisions under Article 173 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty. Failure to observe the rule of law. Infringement
                                                                        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (1) and
2. Having regard to the legal and economic context of                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (2) of
     the cabinet agreements at issue in the market for                  20 April 1988 (laying down detailed rules for the
     single-wrapped items of impulse ice cream does the                 application of decisions granting aid for projects
     practice whereby a manufacturer and/or supplier of ice             concerning Community measures to improve and
     cream provides a freezer to a retailer at no direct                adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector
     charge Ð or otherwise induces the retailer to accept               and in structural works in coastal waters) and of
     the freezer Ð subject to the condition that the retailer           Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (3) of
     stock no ice cream in such freezer other than that                 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for
     supplied by the said manufacturer and/or supplier                  implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
     constitute an infringement of the provisions of                    regards coordination of the activities of the Different
     Article 85(1) and/or Article 86 of the EC Treaty?                  Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                        operations of the European Investment Bank and the
                                                                        other existing financial instruments.
3. Are freezer exclusivity agreements protected from
     challenge under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
     by reason of the provisions of Article 222 of the EC           2. Breach of the obligation to state reasons which is laid
     Treaty?                                                            down in Article 33 of the EC Statute of the Court of
                                                                        Justice and is also referred to in Article 46 of that
                                                                        Statute. The order is illogical and contradictory.
(1) Commission Decision of 11 March 1998, relating to a                 Breach of the rights of the defence.
    proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case
    Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/35.436 Van den Bergh
    Foods Limited) (notified under document number C(1998)          (1) OJ L 376, 31.12.1986, p. 7.
    292) (Only the English text is authentic) (98/531/EC) (OJ       (2) OJ L 112, 30.4.1988, p. 1.
    L 246, 4.9.1998, p. 1).                                         (3) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1.


title: Case T-28/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2011 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2011 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT)
   (Case T-28/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive nature - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l'information (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

      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 Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 November 2009 (Case R 635/2009-2) regarding an application for registration of the word sign EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l'information to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-82/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones v Administración del Estado (Electronic communications — Networks and services — Articles 3(2) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — National numbering plans — Specific regulatory authority)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-82/07) (1)

   (Electronic communications - Networks and services - Articles 3(2) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) - National numbering plans - Specific regulatory authority)
   (2008/C 107/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo (Spain)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones

      Defendant: Administración del Estado
   Re:
   Interpretation of Articles 3(1), (2) and (4) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘Framework Directive’) (OJ 2000 L 108, p. 33) — Allocation of national numbering resources and management of national numbering plans — Regulatory and operational tasks entrusted to a specific authority
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3(2), 3(4) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), read in conjunction with Recital (11) in the preamble to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the assignment of the national numbering resources and the management of the national numbering plans must be regarded as regulatory functions. Member States are not required to allocate those different functions to separate regulatory authorities.

               2.

               Article 10(1) and Article 3(2), (4) and (6) of Directive 2002/21 must be interpreted as not precluding the functions of assigning national numbering resources or of managing national numbering plans from being shared by a number of independent regulatory authorities, provided that the allocation of the tasks is made public and easily accessible, and notified to the Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-207/05: Judgement of the Court (First Chamber) of  1 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC — Aid incompatible with the common market — Duty to recover — Non-fulfilment)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/10

         Judgement of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-207/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Second subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC - Aid incompatible with the common market - Duty to recover - Non-fulfilment)
   (2006/C 178/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, assisted by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding [C-27/99 (ex NN 69/98)] (OJ L 77,2003, p. 21) — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to recover aid declared incompatible with the common market
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to recover aid declared unlawful land incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case T-244/07: Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Campo de Cartagena v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/46

         Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Campo de Cartagena v Council and Commission
   (Case T-244/07)
   (2007/C 211/85)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: S.A.T., ‘Campo de Cartagena’ (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 228 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand two hundred and thirty-eight euros (EUR 288 238);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put forward in the Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


22 . 6 . 96         I EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/27
      Removal from the register of Case C-294/94 ( x )                        Removal from the register of Case C-230/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 180/64 )                                                           96/C 180/68 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of               By order of 19 March 19 96 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-294/94 ( reference for a                    from the register of Case C-230/95 : Council of the European
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de              Union v . European Parliament.
la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Luis
Carlos Quintanilha .                                                    (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-256/95 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/69 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-310/94 ( 1 )                 By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                            ( 96/C 180/65 )                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-256/95 : Commission of the
By order of 16 January 1996 , the President of the Second               European Communities v. French Republic .
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
C-310/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes ): Garage Ardon SA,
Bernard Martin — Garage Colin-Martin, Relais de
Saintonge SARL and Bernard Menet SARL v . Garage                              Removal from the register of Case C-318/95 ( )
Trabisco SA .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/70
C ) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       By order of 14 March 1996 , thue President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-318/95 : Commission of
                                                                        European Communities v. Ireland .
        Removal from the register of Case C-20/95 ( )                   (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                            ( 96/C 180/66 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                       Removal from the register of Case C-374/95 (')
 from the register of Case C-20/95 ( reference for a                                                  96/C 180/71
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
 la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Oscar            By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Weg.                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                         from the register of Case C-374/95 ( reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Southampton Industrial
                                                                        Tribunal ): James Paul Barker v . Service Children's
                                                                         Schools .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/95 ()
                             ( 96/C 180/67 )
 By order of 20 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-381/95 ( )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-33/95 ( reference for a                                                ( 96/C 180/72 )
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
 Saint-Nazaire ): SARL Polypièces v. Directeur des Services              By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
 Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique .                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-381 /95 : Commission of
 (') OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                         European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case T-204/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Victor international v EUIPO — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR) (EU Trade Mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VICTOR — Earlier national figurative mark victoria — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Nature of use — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 September 2016 — Victor international v EUIPO — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTOR)
   (Case T-204/14) (1)

   ((EU Trade Mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VICTOR - Earlier national figurative mark victoria - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Nature of use - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Article 15(1) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 383/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Victor International GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. García Murillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the Court: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez (Alicante, Spain) and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert (Alicante) (represented by: M. Veiga Serrano, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 January 2014 (Case R 2208/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ovejero Jiménez and Ms Becerra Guibert, on the one hand, and Victor International, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Victor International GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-130/17: Action brought on 1 March 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/48

         Action brought on 1 March 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
   (Case T-130/17)
   (2017/C 121/69)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision C(2016)6950 of the European Commission of 28 October 2016 amending the conditions for exemption from the obligation to apply certain requirements of EU law to the OPAL gas pipeline;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 16 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights and an incorrect assessment of the application initiating proceedings concerning the amendment of the current exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the obligation to apply certain requirements of EU law, granted in 2009 pursuant to a decision by the German Federal Grid Agency.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission is not competent to adopt a decision amending the exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the obligation to apply certain requirements of EU law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the conditions of eligibility for exemption of a gas infrastructure laid down in Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(17) of that directive.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the conditions of eligibility for exemption of a gas infrastructure laid down in Article 36(1)(b) of Directive 2009/73/EC, read in conjunction with Article 2(33) of that directive.

                           —

                           The condition for granting a regulatory exemption in respect of a major new gas infrastructure is that the level of risk attached to investment in that infrastructure is such that that investment would not take place unless an exemption were granted.

                           —

                           The investment concerning the construction of the OPAL gas pipeline was finally realised and completed on 13 July 2011, with the result that it is no longer possible to speak of the continued existence of any such risks.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the conditions of eligibility for exemption of a gas infrastructure laid down in Article 36(1)(a) and (e) of Directive 2009/73/EC and, as a result, an incorrect finding that the amendment of the regulatory exemption for the OPAL gas pipeline does not have a negative impact on competition in the gas market.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the conditions of eligibility for exemption of a gas infrastructure laid down in Article 36(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC and, as a result, an incorrect finding that the amendment of the regulatory exemption for the OPAL gas pipeline enhances security of gas supply within the internal market.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the need to comply with the content of Article 102 TFEU was not taken into consideration by the German Federal Grid Agency when it adopted the exemption decision pursuant to Article 36 of Directive 2009/73/EC.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging a failure to provide a statement of reasons for an act within the meaning of Article 296 TFEU and Article 263 TFEU.

               11.

               Eleventh plea in law, alleging that users of natural gas in the Republic of Poland are exposed to the risk of a lack of gas supply, which constitutes infringement of the Treaty objective of activity intended to ensure energy security and the principle of energy solidarity, as well as infringement of Article 7 of the Treaty [on the Functioning of the European Union] through the adoption of a decision which is contrary to other European Union policies.

               12.

               Twelfth plea in law, alleging privileged treatment of infrastructures covered by the exemption, the status of which is incompatible with EU law.

               13.

               Thirteenth and fourteenth pleas in law, alleging infringement of, respectively, Articles 274 and 254 of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part.

               14.

               Fifteenth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7 TFEU through the adoption of a decision which is contrary to other European Union policies.

               15.

               Sixteenth plea in law, based on Article 277 TFEU, alleging that Article 2(33) of Directive 2009/73/EC, read in conjunction with Article 36(1) of that directive, is rendered inapplicable as a result of the arbitrary introduction of a discriminatory division between infrastructure that may be subject to the regulatory exemption and other infrastructure not qualifying for that exemption.


title: Case C-384/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Johan Piek v Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantity — Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Johan Piek v Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
   (Case C-384/05) (1)

   (Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Special reference quantity - Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84)
   (2007/C 42/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Johan Piek

      Defendant: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13) — Determination of reference quantities exempt from levy — National measures providing for the allocation of special reference quantities to producers who have incurred investment obligations, whether or not under a development plan, between 1 September 1981 and 31 March 1984 — Compatibility with Community legislation providing for the period between 1 January 1981 and 31 March 1984
   Operative part of the judgment
   The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings which restricts the category of milk producers who may obtain a special reference quantity to those who incurred investment obligations after 1 September 1981 but before 1 March 1984.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case C-254/04: Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/14

         Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-254/04)
   (2004/C 201/27)
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.


title: Case T-426/09: Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Bayerische Asphalt-Mischwerke v OHIM — Koninklijke BAM Groep (bam)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/29

         Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Bayerische Asphalt-Mischwerke v OHIM — Koninklijke BAM Groep (bam)
   (Case T-426/09)
   2010/C 11/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straβenbaustoffe (Hofolding, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer and Solicitor, and G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (Bunnik, The Netherlands)

      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 11 August 2009 in case R 1005/2008-2, in so far as the opposition was rejected with respect to “non-metallic rigid piping for building; transportable structures; monuments, not of metal; building construction; repairs; repair and maintenance”;

               —

               Grant the opposition against the Community trade mark concerned also for “non-metallic rigid piping for building; transportable structures; monuments, not of metal; building construction; repairs; repair and maintenance”;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “bam”, for goods and services in classes 6, 19, 37 and 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “bam”, for goods in classes 7 and 19

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled partially the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that there was similarity between the goods and services covered by the Community trade mark concerned, on one hand, and the goods covered by the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings, on the other hand; misuse of power as the Board of Appeal acted ultra vires; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to deal, in a comprehensive manner, with the applicant’s arguments set forth in the appeal substantiation; infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in limiting the scope of protection of the Community trade mark concerned and, thus, wrongly failed to take into account all relevant factors.


title: Case T-121/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/25

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL)
   (Case T-121/16)
   (2016/C 175/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL’ – International registration designating the European Union No 1 007 952

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2501/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

               —

               order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 8(4) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-559/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Income tax — Deductibility of support payments made in consideration for a gift by way of anticipated succession — Exclusion of non-residents)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna v Josef Grünewald
   (Case C-559/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Income tax - Deductibility of support payments made in consideration for a gift by way of anticipated succession - Exclusion of non-residents))
   (2015/C 138/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna

      Defendant: Josef Grünewald

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which does not permit a non-resident taxpayer who has received in that Member State commercial income generated by shares in a business which were transferred to him by a relative in the course of a gift by way of anticipated succession to deduct from that income the annuities which he has paid to that relative in consideration for that gift, whereas that legislation allows a resident taxpayer to make such a deduction.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-76/09: Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/27

         Action brought on 16 February 2009 — Mundipharma v OHIM — Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI)
   (Case T-76/09)
   2009/C 102/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma GmbH (Limburg (Lahn), Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Asociación Farmaceuticos Mundi (Alfafar (Valencia), Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Revoke the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2008 in case R 852/2008-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “FARMA MUNDI FARMACEUTICOS MUNDI”, for goods and services in classes 5, 35 and 39 — application No 4 841 136

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 4 304 622 of the trade mark “mundi pharma” for goods and services in classes 5 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was no similarity of the goods and/or services covered by the trade marks in question


title: Case T-304/02: Action brought on 7 October 2002 by NV Hoek Loos against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/25
Action brought on 4 October 2002 by Westfalen Gassen                     Furthermore, according to the applicant, the Commission has
Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European                    failed to take account of the fact that, by virtue of the attitude
                           Communities                                   adopted it at meetings of the Vereniging van Fabrikanten van
                                                                         Industriële Gassen (Association of Manufacturers of Industrial
                                                                         Gases), smaller undertakings were excluded from further
                         (Case T-303/02)                                 involvement in the discussions concerning the concerted
                                                                         practices at issue. The applicant’s attitude was not passive; on
                                                                         the contrary, it actively opposed those practices. According to
                         (2002/C 305/54)                                 the applicant, the attitude thus adopted by it in fact had an
                                                                         effect which was beneficial to competition.
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         The applicant further claims that the Commission is mistaken
                                                                         as to the duration of the infringement allegedly committed by
                                                                         it.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Finally, the applicant claims that the fine imposed is contrary
European Communities on 4 October 2002 by Westfalen                      to the principles of proportionality and equality. According to
Gassen Nederland B.V., established at Deventer (Netherlands),            the applicant, having regard to the turnover figure at the time
represented by J.J.M. Essers, lawyer.                                    of the infringement, it has in relative terms suffered the
                                                                         heaviest penalty, and the Commission, when fixing the amount
                                                                         of the fine, proceeded on the basis of incorrect factual
                                                                         assumptions.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) primarily, annul Articles 1 and 3 of the Commission’s
      decision of 24 July 2002 in case COMP/E-3/36.700 —
      Industrial and medical gases, imposing on the applicant a
      fine of EUR 0.43 million for infringement of Article 81(1)
      EC;
                                                                         Action brought on 7 October 2002 by NV Hoek Loos
(2) alternatively, annul Article 1 of that decision and substan-           against the Commission of the European Communities
      tially reduce the fine imposed by Article 3 thereof;
                                                                                (Case T-304/02)
(3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 305/55)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant has been active on the Netherlands market since            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
1989. It imports industrial gases from Germany from its                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
parent company, Westfalen AG, or purchases them from other               European Communities on 7 October 2002 by NV Hoek
producers.                                                               Loos, established at Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                         J.J. Feenstra and B.F. van Harninxma thoe Slooten, lawyers.
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the
applicant had participated in concerted practices relating to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
price increases, moratoria and minimum prices in respect of
the Netherlands market.                                                  (1) primarily, annul Article 3 of the contested decision, in so
                                                                                far as it concerns the fine imposed on the applicant;
In support of its claim, the applicant states that the Com-              (2) alternatively, in the exercise of its unfettered jurisdiction
mission has produced no proof, or no sufficient proof, of any                   and applying justice in an appropriate manner, substan-
infringement by it of Article 81(1) EC. Thus, the Commission                    tially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
has not proved, or has not sufficiently proved, that the
applicant took part in the concerted practices.                          (3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.12.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul Decision R 719/2000-4 of the Fourth Board of
The applicant is contesting Article 3 of the Commission’s                        Appeal of the OHIM of 12 July 2002;
decision of 24 July 2002 in case COMP/E-3/36.700 —
Industrial and medical gases, in so far as it imposes a fine on            —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC. The applicant
is contesting only the fine imposed on it, and is not challenging
the facts established or the legal assessment thereof.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the contested decision is contrary to            The Community trade           The bottle comprises a main sec-
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 ( 1) and Article 253 EC. Fines           mark concerned:               tion with, at its base, a recess, in
to be imposed are to be determined by reference to the                                                   the shape of a slightly truncated
seriousness of the infringement and the duration thereof.                                                cone with, in its flat section, a
According to the applicant, that rule has been applied by the                                            stylised star in relief In the lower
Commission in an inequitable and unreasonable manner. The                                                part of the main section, which is
applicant maintains that undertakings which committed the                                                nearly cylindrical from bottom to
same infringement over the same period should be required,                                               top, there is an initial series of
under the terms of the decision, to pay a much smaller fine.                                             wavy grooves and, in the top
                                                                                part, which is of slightly smaller
                                                                                diameter and bobbin-shaped,
Furthermore, according to the applicant, the Commission, in                                              there are spiralling grooves which
choosing the addressees of the decision, the turnover attribu-                                           form lozenges when seen through
table to each of those addressees and the order to be applied                                            the bottle The upper section,
to the restriction of the fine to 10 % of turnover and the                                               which is the shape of a slightly
leniency rule, adopted a decision which cannot be objectively                                            truncated cone, ends in a cylindri-
justified and which does not justify the considerable differences                                        cal neck with a blue cap — Regis-
in the amounts of the fines imposed.                                                                     tration No 922179
                                                                           Goods or service:             Water (Class 32 of the inter-
The applicant also pleads infringement of the Community                                                  national classification).
principles of equality and proportionality and of the prohib-
ition precluding arbitrariness. According to the applicant,                Decision of the Board of      Refusal of examiner to register the
undertakings involved in a similar measure have been treated               Appeal:                       mark.
in an unequal way.
                                                                           Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                and (e) of Regulation EEC No 40/
( 1) EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing                                        94.
     Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition
     1959-1962, p. 87).
                                                                           Action brought on 7 October 2002 by Altana Pharma AG
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Action brought on 3 October 2002 by Nestlé Waters                                        Market (Trade, Marks and Designs)
France against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
          Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                  (Case T-307/02)
                         (Case T-305/02)                                                            (2002/C 305/57)
                         (2002/C 305/56)                                   (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                 Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 7 October 2002 by Altana Pharma AG, Konstanz (Germany),
3 October 2002 by Nestlé Waters France, whose registered                   represented by H. Becker, lawyer. N.V. Organon, Oss (Nether-
office is in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), represented by Alain            lands), was an additional party to the proceedings before the
Cléry.                                                                     Board of Appeal.


title: Case T-258/05: Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/27

         Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-258/05)
   (2005/C 229/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt, residing in Orange (France), represented by Bernard Autric, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               order the European Commission to accept his claim of 11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational disease;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004;

               3.

               order the European Commission to answer his questions of 20.01.2004 sent to the Office of Investigation and Discipline (IDOC);

               4.

               order the Commission to give the reason for its decision to withdraw the decision initiating disciplinary proceedings against an official (Mr C);

               5.

               order the payment of damages and interest in the amount of EUR 1 000 000;

               6.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the recognition of his psychological and emotional problems as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. He claims infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, together with the infringement of rights of the defence, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, transparency and legal certainty. He also claims a procedural error.


title: Case T-316/11: Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/30

         Action brought on 17 June 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council
   (Case T-316/11)
   2011/C 226/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mathieu Kadio Morokro (Cocody, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: S. Le Damany, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, (2) in so far as they concern him,

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant raises a plea alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons in so far as the contested decision and regulation infringe Article 296 TFEU, pursuant to which legal acts of the European Union institutions must state the reasons on which they are based. The applicant submits, first, that the statement of reasons does not clarify why he was included on the list of persons, in the annex to the decision and the regulation, against whom certain restrictive measures were imposed and, second, that that failure to state reasons deprives him of the possibility to properly challenge the restrictive measures imposed on him.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011, amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10).


title: Case C-413/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 2003/54/EC — Common rules for the internal market in electricity — Directive 2004/85/EC — Temporary derogations in favour of Estonia — Legal basis)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 November 2006 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-413/04) (1)

   (Directive 2003/54/EC - Common rules for the internal market in electricity - Directive 2004/85/EC - Temporary derogations in favour of Estonia - Legal basis)
   (2006/C 331/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by A. Baas and U. Rösslein, agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union, (represented by A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Sack and P. Van Nuffel, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Estonia, (represented by L. Uibo, agent), Republic of Poland, (represented by M. Węglarz, T. Nowakowski and T. Krawczyk, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004 amending Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia (OJ 2004 L 236, p. 10) — Legal basis
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Directive 2004/85/EC of 28 June 2004 amending Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application of certain provisions to Estonia, in so far as it grants Estonia a derogation from the application of Article 21(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC going beyond 31 December 2008 and imposes a corresponding obligation to ensure only a partial opening of the market representing 35 % of consumption on 1 January 2009 and an obligation to communicate annually the consumption thresholds extending eligibility to final customers;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4)

               Orders the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Estonia and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-266/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/81/EC — Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities — Failure to transpose completely — Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-266/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/81/EC - Residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities - Failure to transpose completely - Failure to communicate the measures to transpose the directive)
   2009/C 153/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities, the provisions of national law intended to contribute to ensuring such compliance, 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 209, of 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-625/11 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/45

      Appeal brought on 6 December 2011 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 21 September 2011 in Case T-268/10: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
      (Case C-625/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/83)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, SNF SAS (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, avocats)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the Order of the General Court in Case T-268/10; and

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006 and the subsequent inclusion on 30 March 2010 of acrylamide in the candidate list of substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006; or

                  —

                  Alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellants' Application for annulment; and

                  —

                  Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Appellants submit that, in dismissing their application for annulment in respect of the decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006 and the subsequent inclusion on 30 March 2010 of acrylamide in the candidate list of substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006, the General Court breached Union law. In particular, the Appellants contend that the General Court committed a number of errors in its interpretation of the facts and of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellants' situation. That resulted in it making a number of errors in law, in particular:

                  —

                  Its interpretation and application of Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure and the case law on the calculation of time limits; and

                  —

                  Its finding that the Appellants' Application for annulment of the decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l907/2006 and the subsequent inclusion on 30 March 2010 of acrylamide in the candidate list of substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006, is inadmissible.

            For these reasons the Appellants claim that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-268/10 should be set aside and the decision of ECHA to identify acrylamide as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation l907/2006 in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation l90712006 and the subsequent inclusion on 30 March 2010 of acrylamide in the candidate list of substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006, should be annulled.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC
      OJ L 396, p. 1


title: Case C-559/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/21

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-559/07)
   (2008/C 37/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and M.van Beek)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions concerning different retirement ages and different minimum-service requirements for men and women under the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Commission, after examining the provisions in force of the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code, found that they provide that women are entitled to a retirement pension at a different age from men and under different conditions regarding the minimum period of service required.

               2.

               In the light of the Court of Justice's case-law, the Commission submits that the pensions in question, which are paid by an employer to a former worker as a consequence of the employment relationship between them, constitute pay within the meaning of Article 141 EC. Furthermore, because of the particular nature of the pension systems in question, under which pensions depend on the period of service completed and on the worker's salary prior to grant of a pension, the persons drawing a pension constitute, in the Commission's view, ‘a particular category of workers’, while the method of financing and managing the pension system does not constitute a decisive factor for the application of Article 141 EC.

               3.

               Also, in the Commission's submission, the conditions for application of Article 141(4) EC, which concerns providing for specific advantages to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity, are not met.
               In this instance, the provisions in question do not help to correct the problems which women may face in their professional careers but, on the contrary, facilitate their withdrawal from the labour market.

               4.

               Furthermore, the justification pleaded, regarding the State mechanism being caused to malfunction and the consequent laying down of transitional provisions, is not persuasive in the Commission's view because, first, economic consequences which could result for a Member State do not justify in themselves the temporal restriction of the application of rules of Community law and, second, the Hellenic Republic has not in practice demonstrated the existence and precise nature of the malfunctioning pleaded.

               5.

               Consequently, the Commission considers that, by maintaining in force provisions concerning different retirement ages and different minimum-service requirements for men and women under the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC.


title: Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-152/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 233 / 3
     — the principle that there must be a balance between                 argument put forward by the Luxembourg authorities, the
         the rights and obligations of the parties : in addition          sending of commercial samples free of charge does in fact
         to the concessions embodied in the ATC conditions,               constitute an operation covered by the Sixth Directive , in
         the Community has made a significant number of                   respect of which Article 5 ( 6 ) of that Directive lays down
         additional concessions in exchange for the measures              special arrangements consisting in an exemption
         for opening up the Indian and Pakistani markets                  accompanied by a refund of the input tax paid by the trader
         incorporated in the Memoranda of Understanding.                  concerned . Moreover, the position adopted by Luxembourg
         Furthermore , the measures for opening up those                  is inconsistent, inasmuch as it subjects to VAT imports of
         markets are extremely uncertain and liable to be                 commercial samples provided free of charge whilst enabling
         reversed .                                                       the tax thus paid to be deducted by taxable persons in
                                                                          Luxembourg .
(')  Not yet published in the Official Journal .
(2)  OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 50 .
(■') OJ No L 275 , 1993 , p . 1 .                                         (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
(4)  OJ No L 86 , 1995 , p . 10 .
Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                           Action brought on 10 May 1996 by the Portuguese Republic
                             Luxembourg                                                 against the European Commission
                          ( Case C-152/96 )
                                                                                ( Case C-159/96 )
                            ( 96/C 233 /03 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/04 )
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       An action against the European Commission was brought
Communities on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the                        before the Court of Justice on 10 May 1996 by the
European Communities, represented by Hélène Michard                       Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Luis Fernandes and
and Enrico Traversa , acting as Agents , with an address for              Maria Lui'sa Duarte , acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée
Cruz , of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg .                  Scheffer .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should :
( a ) declare that, by introducing and applying national rules
      operating in such a way that supplies of samples such as            — declare void the Commission's practice of applying
      specimen discs or books, which are exempt for                           ' exceptional flexibility' measures in connection with the
      domestic       transactions    and     in  the    context   of
                                                                              administration of quantitative limits on the import by
      intra-Community supplies under Articles 5 ( 6 ) and                     the European Community of textile products and
      28c ( B ) ( a ) respectively of the Sixth Council VAT                   clothing from non-member countries and, specifically,
      Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the                          the decision adopted by the Commission following the
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States
                                                                              meeting of the Textile Committee of 6 March 1996 on
      relating to turnover taxes — common system of value                     textile products from the People's Republic of China ,
      added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( 1 ), as amended ,
      cannot qualify for deduction of input value added tax,
      and by making imports of those goods subject to VAT,                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
      contrary to the provisions of Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the
      Sixth VAT Directive , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive;
( b ) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                      — Manifest abuse by the Commission of its powers for the
      costs .                                                                 implementation of international agreements on trade in
                                                                              textile products and clothing : the ' exceptional flexiblity'
                                                                              measures, applied after full use has been made of all the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           mechanisms provided for in the Community legislation
                                                                              and the bilateral agreements between the European
Infringement of the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive                     Community and supplier countries for flexible
( 77/388/EEC ) referred to in the claims : contrary to the                    observance of quantitative limits, cannot be regarded as


title: Case T-408/12: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Opposition withdrawn — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/18

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Ubee Interactive v OHIM — Augere Holdings (Netherlands) (ubee)
   (Case T-408/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Opposition withdrawn - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 101/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ubee Interactive Corp. (Jhubei City, Taiwan) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2012 (Case R 1848/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Augere Holdings (Netherlands) BV and Ubee Interactive Corp.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-384/17: Action brought on 21 June 2017 — Chypre v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/33

         Action brought on 21 June 2017 — Chypre v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI)
   (Case T-384/17)
   (2017/C 269/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M. J. Dairies EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colour containing the word element ‘BBQLOUMI’ — Application for registration No 13 069 034

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2017 in Case R 496/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/48

         Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
   (Case T-84/14)
   2014/C 135/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.


title: Case C-399/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/13

         Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Vichy Catalán, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-302/15 Vichy Catalán v OHIM — Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)
   (Case C-399/15 P)
   (2015/C 406/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Vichy Catalán, S.A. (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Hijos de Rivera (Fuente Estrella)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the order under appeal, replacing it with a declaration that the application brought by the appellant in Case T-302/15 before the General Court is admissible.

               —

               Order any parties that may appear to defend order under appeal to pay the costs of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The order of the General Court (Third Chamber) in which the application was dismissed as inadmissible is unlawful for the following reasons:

               1.

               Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (no statute-barring when the existence of unforeseeable circumstances, or of force majeure, is proved), in two respects;

                           a.

                           the order was made without giving sufficient time for the appellant to prove the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure that delayed the sending of the hard copy of the application. That has deprived the appellant of the right to a fair hearing; and

                           b.

                           there were unforeseeable circumstances in the present case.

               2.

               Incorrect interpretation of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure.

               3.

               Retroactive application, to the detriment of the appellant, of new provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which came into force on 1 July 2015, to situations which had to be subject to the previous Rules of Procedure.


title: Case C-405/13: Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/38

         Action brought on 17 July 2013 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-405/13)
   2013/C 260/68
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch. O. Beynet and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for the transposition of the provisions in Article 2(1), Article 3(5)(b), (7), (8) and (9)(c), Article 5, Article 7(4), Article 9(1) to (7), Article 10(2) and (5), Article 11(8), Article 13(4) and (5)(b), Article 16(1) and (2), Article 25(1), Article 26(2)(c), Article 31(3), Article 34(2), Article 37(1)(k), (p) and (q), (3)(b) and (d) and (10) to (12), Article 38(1), Article 39(1), (4) and (8) and point I of Annex I to Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (1) or in any event failing to notify such measures to the European Commission, Romania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of the directive;

               —

               order Romania, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty of EUR 30 228,84 for each day of delay in complying with its obligation to communicate the measures necessary for the transposition of Directive 2009/72/EC, with effect from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


title: Case T-657/16: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Márquez Alentà v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (Representation of an ant) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing an ant — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/23

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2017 — Márquez Alentà v EUIPO — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (Representation of an ant)
   (Case T-657/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing an ant - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 269/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Márquez Alentà (Cervera, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2016 (Case R 1242/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Fiesta Hotels & Resorts and Mr Márquez Alentà.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Mr Marc Márquez Alentà.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 November 2004 in Case C-444/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon): Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP) (Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Definition of database — Scope of the sui generis right — Football fixture lists — Betting)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 9 November 2004
   in Case C-444/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon): Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP) (1)

   (Directive 96/9/EC - Legal protection of databases - Definition of database - Scope of the sui generis right - Football fixture lists - Betting)
   (2005/C 6/16)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-444/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece), made by decision of 11 July 2002, received at the Court on 9 December 2002, the proceedings between Fixtures Marketing Ltd and Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi and M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrators, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
   The term database as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases refers to any collection of works, data or other materials, separable from one another without the value of their contents being affected, including a method or system of some sort for the retrieval of each of its constituent materials.
   A fixture list for a football league such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings constitutes a database within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9.
   The expression ‘investment in … the obtaining … of the contents’ of a database in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9 must be understood to refer to the resources used to seek out existing independent materials and collect them in the database. It does not cover the resources used for the creation of materials which make up the contents of a database. In the context of drawing up a fixture list for the purpose of organising football league fixtures, therefore, it does not cover the resources used to establish the dates, times and the team pairings for the various matches in the league.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case C-641/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(3) — Exclusive right of broadcasting organisations — Communication to the public — Places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee — Communication of broadcasts by TV sets installed in hotel rooms)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH
   (Case C-641/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(3) - Exclusive right of broadcasting organisations - Communication to the public - Places accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee - Communication of broadcasts by TV sets installed in hotel rooms))
   (2017/C 112/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH

      Defendant: Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the communication of television and radio broadcasts by means of TV sets installed in hotel rooms does not constitute a communication made in a place accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case T-420/15: Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Thun 1794 v OHIM — Adekor (graphical symbols)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/28

         Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Thun 1794 v OHIM — Adekor (graphical symbols)
   (Case T-420/15)
   (2015/C 337/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Thun 1794 a.s. (Nová Role, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Steidl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Adekor s.r.o. (Loket, Czech Republic)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design No 000840400-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 1465/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of essential procedural rules;

               —

               Infringement of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

               —

               Misuse of powers.


title: Case T-215/15: Action brought on 29 April 2015 — Azarov v Council

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/25

         Action brought on 29 April 2015 — Azarov v Council
   (Case T-215/15)
   (2015/C 221/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               prescribe, pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, certain measures of organisation of procedure;

               —

               order the Council, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               In this regard, it is claimed, inter alia, that the statement of reasons for the contested acts is too general with respect to the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of fundamental rights
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant invokes infringement of the right to property and infringement of the freedom to conduct a business. He also complains that the restrictive measures imposed are disproportionate. Lastly, he submits that there has been infringement of his rights of the defence.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               In this regard, the applicant submits inter alia that the Council misused its powers because the imposition of restrictive measures against him predominantly pursued objectives other than those of actually consolidating and supporting the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of good administration
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant complains in particular of infringement of the right to impartial treatment, infringement of the right to just or fair treatment and infringement of the right to a careful investigation of the facts.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Manifest error of assessment