title: Case C-249/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 May 2011 — Hristo Byankov v Glaven Sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (MVR)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 19 May 2011 — Hristo Byankov v Glaven Sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (MVR)
   (Case C-249/11)
   2011/C 232/28
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hristo Byankov

      Defendant: Glaven Sekretar na Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti (MVR)

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the facts of the main proceedings, does the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union require that a national provision of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings — under which a final administrative act may be annulled in order to put an end to an infringement of a fundamental right which has been established by a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which right is also recognised in European Union law and concerns the freedom of movement enjoyed by nationals of the Member States — must also be applied with reference to the interpretation adopted by decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of provisions of EU law which are relevant to the restrictions on the exercise of the aforementioned right, where the administrative act must be annulled in order to put an end to the infringement?

               2.

               Does it follow from Article 31(1) and (3) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC that, where a Member State has provided in its national law for a procedure for examining an administrative act which limits the right under Article 4(1) of the Directive, the competent administrative authority is required, at the request of the addressee of the administrative act, to examine that measure and to assess its legality with reference also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of relevant provisions of EU law governing the conditions and limitations applicable to the exercise of that right, so as to ensure that the limitation imposed on the right is not disproportionate at the time when the review decision is adopted, where the administrative act imposing the limitation is already final at that time?

               3.

               Do the provisions of the second sentence of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38 permit the application of a national provision which provides for the imposition of a limitation on the freedom of movement, within the European Union, of a national of a Member State of the European Union, solely on account of the existence of an unsecured liability in excess of a certain amount laid down by law that is owed to a private individual (a commercial company), in the context of pending enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the claim, and without regard to the possibility, provided for in EU law, of the claim being recovered by an authority of another Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 December 1997 in Case C-336/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg): Eftalia Dafeki v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Württemberg (Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Social security - Rule of national law according different probative value to certificates of civil status depending on whether they are of national or foreign origin)

text:
C 41/4                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.2.98
1. declares that, by not having within the period                     national, the competent social security institutions and the
     prescribed adopted all the laws, regulations and                 courts of a Member State must accept certificates and
     administrative provisions necessary to ensure that               analogous documents relative to personal status issued by
     Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991                     the competent authorities of the other Member States,
     concerning the placing of plant protection products on           unless their accuracy is seriously undermined by concrete
     the market Ð with the exception of Article 10 (1),               evidence relating to the individual case in question.
     second indent, thereof Ð was transposed into
     domestic law, the Federal Republic of Germany has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;           (1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.
2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 December 1997
                                                                      in Case C-188/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the éstre Landsret: Fantask A/S and Others v.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) (1)
                       of 2 December 1997
                                                                      (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Registration charges on
in Case C-336/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               companies Ð Procedural time-limits under national law)
the Sozialgericht Hamburg): Eftalia Dafeki v. Landesver-
               sicherungsanstalt Württemberg (1)                                               (98/C 41/07)
(Freedom of movement for workers Ð Equal treatment Ð
Social security Ð Rule of national law according different
probative value to certificates of civil status depending on                         (Language of the case: Danish)
        whether they are of national or foreign origin)
                           (98/C 41/06)
                (Language of the case: German)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    In Case C-188/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret, Denmark, for
                                                                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
In Case C-336/94: reference to the Court under Article 177            that court between Fantask A/S and Others and
of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht (Social Court)                Industriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) Ð on the
Hamburg (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                    interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
proceedings pending before that court between Eftalia                 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
Dafeki and Landesversicherungsanstalt Württemberg Ð                   (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as most
on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                 recently amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
Treaty in the light of German provisions under which                  10 June 1985 (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court
certificates of civil status are accorded different probative         composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
value, depending on whether they are German or foreign                Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
Ð the Court, composed of: H. Ragnemalm (President of                  Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
the Fourth and Sixth Chambers), acting for the President,             P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,               Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann                 Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,                     Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                2 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December                 follows:
1997, in which it has ruled:
In proceedings for determining the entitlements to social             1. On a sound construction of Article 12 (1)(e) of
security benefits of a migrant worker who is a Community                   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969


title: Case C-481/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Bamberg (Germany) lodged on 9 September 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani
   (Case C-481/13)
   2013/C 352/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Bamberg

      Party to the main proceedings

   Mohammad Ferooz Qurbani

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the personal ground for the suspension of penalties in Article 31 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (‘GC’) also include, beyond its wording, forgery of documents, which took place on presentation of a forged passport to a police officer on the occasion of entry by air into the Federal Republic of Germany, when the forged passport is not in fact necessary to apply for asylum in that State?

               2.

               Does the use of human traffickers preclude reliance on Article 31 GC?

               3.

               Is the factual requirement in Article 31 GC, of coming ‘directly’ from a territory where the life or freedom of the person concerned was threatened, to be interpreted as meaning that that element is also satisfied if the person concerned first entered another Member State (here: Greece) from where he continued to another Member State (here: the Federal Republic of Germany) in which he seeks asylum?


title: Case T-424/09: Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd v OHIM — Sportfive (QUALIFIER)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/38

         Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd v OHIM — Sportfive (QUALIFIER)
   (Case T-424/09)
   2009/C 312/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 August 2009 in case R 1291/2008 4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres UK Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark “QUALIFIER’ for goods in Class 12 (Application No 4 877 262)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sportfive GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark No 4 017 836 and German word mark No 30 415 017.1 ‘Qualifiers 2006’, German word/figurative mark No 30 414 610.2 ‘2006 QUALIFIERS’, the German word mark No 30 515 033.2 ‘Qualifiers 2008’ and German word/figurative mark Nr. 30 565 616.3 ‘2008 QUALIFIERS’, all registered inter alia for goods in Class 12

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allow the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-229/16: Action brought on 6 May 2016 — Pio De Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/48

         Action brought on 6 May 2016 — Pio De Bragança v EUIPO — Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (QUIS UT DEUS)
   (Case T-229/16)
   (2016/C 270/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Duarte Pio De Bragança (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: J. Sardinha, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ordem de São Miguel da Ala (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘quis ut deus’ — European Union trade mark No 005747936

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2016 in Case R 621/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and, therefore, declare the total invalidity, on the grounds of lack of genuine use, of the contested trade mark including with respect to the ‘signboards of metal’ goods belonging to Class 6;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

   Infringement of Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) and 51(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, [the present action] having been brought under Article 65 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).


title: Case F-89/14: Action brought on 2 September 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/62

         Action brought on 2 September 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-89/14)
   2014/C 421/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance and ordering it to pay that allowance to him, together with interest, since taking up his duties.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance, adopted on 11/11/2013 as appointing authority (PMO), notified on 19/11/2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay him that allowance from the date he took up his duties at the Commission;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant interest at the rate applied by the ECB for its refinancing operations on the amount corresponding to each of those allowances, from the date when it became due until full payment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-72/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Établissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence (Direct taxation — Free movement of capital — Legal persons established in a non-member State belonging to the European Economic Area — Ownership of immovable property located in a Member State — Tax on the market value of that property — Refusal of exemption — Combating tax evasion — Assessment in the light of the EEA Agreement)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Établissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence
   (Case C-72/09) (1)

   (Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Legal persons established in a non-member State belonging to the European Economic Area - Ownership of immovable property located in a Member State - Tax on the market value of that property - Refusal of exemption - Combating tax evasion - Assessment in the light of the EEA Agreement)
   2010/C 346/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissements Rimbaud SA

      Defendants: Directeur général des impôts, Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) (France) — Interpretation of Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) of 2 May 1992 — Tax on the commercial value of immoveable property situated in France — Exemption for legal persons established in France or in a State within the European Economic Area conditional on France having concluded with that State a convention on administrative assistance for the purposes of combating tax evasion and avoidance or on the fact that, under a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination, those legal persons are not to be taxed more heavily than companies established in France — Refusal of tax exemption to a company established in Liechtenstein

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which exempts from the tax on the market value of immovable property located in a Member State of the European Union companies which have their seat in that Member State and which, in respect of a company which has its seat in a country belonging to the European Economic Area which is not a Member State of the European Union, makes that exemption conditional either on the existence of a convention on administrative assistance between the Member State and the non-member State for the purposes of combating tax evasion and avoidance or on the fact that, pursuant to a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality, those legal persons must not be taxed more heavily than companies established in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009, p. 12.


title: Case C-496/13 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/13

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-496/13 P)
   2013/C 313/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 in Case R 2109/2010-1;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward as its single ground of appeal the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and failure to have regard to the rules of evidence in the application of that provision.
   In support of that ground of appeal the appellant submits:

               In comparing the signs the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment doctrine because it made a sweeping comparison of the elements ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in doing so left out all the other elements of the marks.

               In particular, the General Court would, if it had applied the global assessment doctrine correctly, have had to attach more importance to some of the other elements of the marks at issue, inter alia the combination of colours in the disputed mark and the opposing mark and the description ‘LA’ in the opposing mark and ‘brunes’ in the disputed mark.

               In addition, the General Court incorrectly applied the principles set out by the Court of Justice in respect of conceptual similarity as it did not take sufficient account of the different languages of the marks.

               Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard to the rules of evidence set out in the Rules of Procedure in that it made assumptions with regard to the pronunciation of the mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ without evidence and based the decision on them.

               All in all, the General Court thus came to an incorrect conclusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


title: Case C-408/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2006 — Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Abteilung Förderwesen und Fachrecht v Franz Götz

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2006 — Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Abteilung Förderwesen und Fachrecht v Franz Götz
   (Case C-408/06)
   (2006/C 310/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Abteilung Förderwesen und Fachrecht

      Defendant: Franz Götz
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a ‘Milchquoten-Verkaufsstelle’ (milk-quota sales point) set up by a German Land which transfers delivery reference quantities to milk producers for consideration

                           a)

                           an agricultural intervention agency within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of and Annex D (7) to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) (‘the Sixth Directive’) which carries out transactions in respect of agricultural products pursuant to regulations on the common organisation of the market in these products, or

                           b)

                           a Verkaufsstelle (staff shop) within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of and Annex D (12) of the Sixth Directive?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

                           a)

                           In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where in a Member State both public and private milk-quota sales points transfer delivery reference quantities for consideration, is it the case that when assessing whether the treatment of a Milchquoten-Verkaufsstelle of a body governed by public law as a non-taxable person would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive the relevant geographic market is the transfer area defined by the Member State?

                           b)

                           When assessing whether the treatment of a public Milchquoten-Verkaufsstelle as a non-taxable person would lead to such ‘significant distortions of competition’ is only the normal case of transfers independently of the land (by a Verkaufsstelle) to be taken into consideration, or are other types of transfers independently of the land (by farmers as taxable persons) also to be included even though they are only exceptional cases?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-254/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2008 — Futura Immobiliare Srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 16 June 2008 — Futura Immobiliare Srl Hotel Futura and Others v Comune di Casoria
   (Case C-254/08)
   (2008/C 209/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Futura Immobiliare Srl Hotel Futura and Others

      Defendant: Comune di Casoria
   Question referred
   The question arising is whether the national provisions contained in Article 58 et seq of Legislative Decree No 507 of 1993 and the transitional provisions maintaining them in force, by virtue of Article 11 of Presidential Decree No 158 of 1999, as subsequently amended, and Article 1(184) of Law No 296 of 2006, so ensuring the continuation of a system, fiscal in nature, designed to cover the costs of the waste disposal service and postponing the introduction of a tariff regime in which the cost of the service is borne by the persons producing and delivering the waste, are compatible with the abovementioned Article 15 of the Community Directive 75/442/EEC (1) which replaces Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and the principle of ‘the polluter pays’ referred to.

      (1)  OJ L 194, p. 39.

      (2)  OJ L 78, p. 32.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 18 May 1995 in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K.G.P. Pouwels and J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen te Roermond (Case C-167/95)

text:
No C 208/6             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
Appeal brought on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                   'S -Hertogenbosch        ( Regional     Court    of    Appeal,
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                   's-Hertogenbosch ), of 18 May 1995 , which was received at
28 March 1995 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First                 the Court Registry on 31 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-12/94                     in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J.
between Frederic Daffix and the Commission of the                        Scheres c.s . v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/
                    European Communities                                 Ondernemingen te Roermond ( Head of the Undertakings
                       ( Case C-166/95 P)                                Unit of the Revenue Office, Roermond ) on the following
                                                                         question:
                           ( 95/C 208/ 12 )
                                                                         should Article 9 of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 1 995               meaning that the place where a veterinary surgeon supplies
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               his services as such should be deemed to be the place where
European Communities in Case T-12/94 between Frederic                    he has established his business or has a fixed establishment
Daffix and the Commission of the European Communities                    from which the services are supplied or, in the absence of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   such a place of business or fixed establishment, the place
Communities on 30 May 1995 by the Commission of the                      where he has his permanent address or usually resides, or
European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                            should that Article be interpreted as meaning that the place
Gouloussis, of its Legal Service , acting as Agent, assisted by          where a veterinary surgeon supplies his services as such is
Benoit Cambier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                  located elsewhere, namely at the place where those services
service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis,                  are physically carried out or at the place where the customer
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 has established his business or has a fixed establishment to
                                                                          which the service is supplied or, in the absence of such a
The appellant claims that the Court should :                              place, the place where he has his permanent address or
                                                                          usually resides ?
— set aside the judgment given on 28 March 1995 by the
     Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     European Communities in Case T-12/94 ('),
 — grant the form of order sought by the Commission
     before the Court of First Instance and , as a consequence,
     reject the claims of Frederic Daffix,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
 — make an appropriate order as to costs .                                Circondariale di Vicenza by order of that court of 22 April
                                                                           1995 in criminal proceedings pending before that court
                                                                                against Luciano Arcaro
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case C-168/95 )
 — inadmissibility of the plea in law upheld by the Court of                                        ( 95/C 208/14 )
     First Instance : the Court of First Instance was wrong in
     considering that, in the present case, the plea alleging
     that the statement of reasons was inadequate could be                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     regarded as involving a question of public policy and be              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
     held to be admissible even though it was out of time,                 Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Vicenza, of
                                                                           22 April 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 — the plea in law upheld by the Court of First Instance is                30 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
     unfounded .                                                           proceedings pending before that court against Luciano
                                                                           Arcaro on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 11 .
                                                                           1 . Does point 8 (') of the present order for reference put
                                                                               forward a correct interpretation of the Community
                                                                               Directives 76/464/EEC ( 2 ) and 83/513/EEC (*) which
                                                                               Legislative Decree No 133/1992 aims to implement ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,                  2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may, in the
 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 18 May                          light of a correct interpretation of Community law,
 1995 in the case of M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and                  direct effect be given to provisions of Community law —
 J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/                            while at the same time conflicting provisions of national
                 Ondernemingen te Roermond                                     law are disapplied — even though the position of the
                                                                               individual may thereby be impaired ?
                          ( Case C-167/95 )
                             ( 95/C 208/ 13 )
                                                                           3 . If question 2 is answered in the negative, what other
                                                                               steps may be taken, in the light of a correct
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        interpretation of Community law, in order to secure the
 European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechthsof,                        repeal under the national legal system of provisions


title: Case T-219/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE)
   (Case T-219/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 161/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 (Case R 507/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ViSAGE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case T-395/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a chocolate rabbit — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit)
   (Case T-395/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a chocolate rabbit - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 46/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 July 2008 (Case R 419/2008-4), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case F-142/07: Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Kaminska v Committee of the Regions

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/38

         Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Kaminska v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-142/07)
   (2008/C 79/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Magdalena Kaminska (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Engelen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decisions of the Committee of the Regions of 30 April 2007 and of 6 September 2007 refusing the applicant payment of the daily allowance and rejecting her note of 6 June 2007 and an order for the defendant to pay default interest on the amounts due by virtue of daily allowance until full payment of the amounts due.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 30 April 2007 refusing the applicant payment of the daily allowance;

               —

               annul, in so far as necessary, the decision of 6 September 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay default interest on the daily amounts due by virtue of daily allowance from 16 April 2006 until full payment of the amounts due;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-169/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof — BENELUX) — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Industrial and commercial property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 93/98/EEC — Article 10(2) — Term of protection — No revival of protection due to Berne Convention)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof — BENELUX) — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
   (Case C-169/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 93/98/EEC - Article 10(2) - Term of protection - No revival of protection due to Berne Convention))
   (2016/C 475/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Benelux Gerechtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Montis Design BV

      Defendant: Goossens Meubelen BV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10(2) of Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, read together with Article 13(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the terms of protection laid down by that directive do not apply to copyright which was initially protected by national legislation but which was extinguished prior to 1 July 1995.
   Directive 93/98 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, initially, had granted, as in the main proceedings, copyright protection to a work, but which, subsequently, caused that copyright to be definitively extinguished, before 1 July 1995, by reason of non-compliance with a formal requirement.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-146/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/40

         Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-146/05)
   (2005/C 143/76)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on by Flex Equipos de Descanso, established in Alcobendas, Madrid (Spain), represented by I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer.
   Recticel N.V. established in Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe (Belguim) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   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 of 8 February 2005 in case R 469/2004-2;

               —

               remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the Community Trade Mark Application No. 1.278.175 RENOFLEX for all the goods in classes 17 and 20;

               —

               declare that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is infringing the principle of legal certainty;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Recticel N.V.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The word mark ‘RENOFLEX’ for goods inter alia in classes 17 and 20 (filling materials for seats, benches for vehicles, furniture ...) — application No 1 278 175

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The national figurative marks ‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 17 and 20 respectively (rubber, beds, mattresses, convertible furniture, desks ...)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

               Pleas in law:

               The likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark and the earlier trade marks is evident because of the similarity of the signs and the fact that the goods covered by the trade marks are partly identical, partly similar.
               The Community trade mark bears a close resemblance with the earlier trade marks, due to the fact that the word element and dominant part of the earlier trade marks, FLEX, is included in the contested Community trade mark, RENOFLEX. The addition of the word RENO does not alter the overall impression.
               The contested decision therefore entails an infringement of Article 8(1)b of Council Regulation No 40/94.
               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market has further more infringed the principal of legal certainty.


title: Case C-221/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-490/13 GJ v Court of Justice of the European Union

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/7

         Appeal brought on 27 February 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2014 in Case T-490/13 GJ v Court of Justice of the European Union
   (Case C-221/14 P)
   2014/C 235/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: H (represented by: S. Sagias, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for hearing on the merits or, in the alternative, uphold the claims put forward at first instance in their entirety;

               —

               order the defendant at first instance, respondent in the current proceedings, to pay the costs of all proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal in support of his appeal against the order of the general Court of 27 February 2014.
   By his first ground of appeal, the appellant begins by arguing that the General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU and Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations (1), as well as Articles 2 and 35 of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities. The appellant claims, first, that the order under appeal is vitiated by an error of law in that the General Court held that actions by former members of the Court against acts adversely affecting them in the area of JSIS coverage come solely within the scope of Article 263 TFEU and had to be brought within two months, as provided for under that provision. Secondly, the General Court erred in law in holding that Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials is not applicable to members and former members of the Court.
   By his second ground of appeal, the appellant then argues that the General Court erred in law in refusing to apply the case-law on excusable error.
   Lastly, by his third plea, the appellant submits that the application of Article 111 of the General Court’s Rules of Procedure is vitiated by an error of law and a procedural irregularity. The appellant disagrees that the action brought before the General Court was ‘manifestly’ inadmissible, which prevented it from specifying the ground of inadmissibility which served as the basis for that ruling. The General Court also infringed the appellant’s right to a fair hearing, his rights of defence and, in particular, the right to be heard and the right to an effective remedy, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case T-416/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Biotronik SE v OHIM — Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CARDIO MANAGER — Earlier national word mark CardioMessenger — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Biotronik SE v OHIM — Cardios Sistemas (CARDIO MANAGER)
   (Case T-416/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CARDIO MANAGER - Earlier national word mark CardioMessenger - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 359/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Biotronik SE & Co. KG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Reich, S. Pietzcker and R. Jacobs, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda (Sao Paulo, Brazil)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2011 (Case R 1156/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Biotronik SE & Co. KG and Cardios Sistemas Comercial e Industrial Ltda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Biotronik SE & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case F-107/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014  — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Retired official — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Pension deduction — Examination of the incriminating witness by the Disciplinary Board — Failure to hear from the official concerned — Failure to respect the right to be heard)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
   (Case F-107/13) (1)

   ((Staff case - Officials - Retired official - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Pension deduction - Examination of the incriminating witness by the Disciplinary Board - Failure to hear from the official concerned - Failure to respect the right to be heard))
   2014/C 421/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: José Antonio de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: É. Boigelot and R. Murru, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

      Subject-matter of proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission to impose a disciplinary measure on the applicant under Article 9(2) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and requests for damages for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered and reimbursement of amounts already deducted.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 14 March 2013 imposing on Mr de Brito Sequeira Carvalho, for disciplinary reasons, a deduction of one third of his net monthly pension amount for a period of two years.

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3)

               Order the European Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by M. de Brito Sequeira Carvalho.

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 24, p. 41.


title: Case C-334/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 June 2011 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/4

         Appeal brought on 29 June 2011 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
   (Case C-334/11 P)
   2011/C 282/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests the Court of Justice to decide as follows:

               —

               The judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 an the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 are annulled.

               —

               The costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office, before the General Court and before this court shall be borne by the Office and by the Intervener.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant claims that the contested judgment must be annulled because the General Court violated Article 43 (2) and (3) CTMR and committed legal error in deciding that in the contested case the five-year period following registration within which the earlier German mark FOCUS on which the opposition against the CTM application for ACNO FOCUS was based must be put to genuine use did not begin to run until 13 January 2004.
   The Appellant does not challenge the finding of likelihood of confusion. While the Appellant disagrees with the finding, the Appellant considers that the General Court did not commit any error of law.


title: Case C-96/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes (France) lodged on 28 February 2014  — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes (France) lodged on 28 February 2014 — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA
   (Case C-96/14)
   2014/C 142/31
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jean-Claude Van Hove

      Defendant: CNP Assurances SA

      Question referred

   Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a term relating to the definition of the main subject matter of a contract which appears in that provision covers a term of an insurance contract intended to ensure that loan repayments payable to the lender will be covered in the event of the borrower’s total incapacity for work if that term prevents the insured person from receiving that cover in the event that he is declared capable of carrying on unpaid employment?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-588/13 P: Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Telefónica S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-430/11 Telefónica v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/10

         Appeal brought on 20 November 2013 by Telefónica S.A. against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2013 in Case T-430/11 Telefónica v Commission
   (Case C-588/13 P)
   2014/C 24/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Telefónica S.A. (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               declare the action for annulment in Case T-430/11 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the substance of the dispute;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings relating to admissibility at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court erred in law in interpreting the last phrase of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court errs in law in stating that decisions regarding State aid schemes, such as the contested decision, require implementing measures within the meaning of the new Treaty provision.

               2.

               The General Court infringed European Union law in interpreting the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ for the purposes of examining the admissibility of actions brought against decisions declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible. In particular,

                           —

                           the General Court wrongly interpreted the case-law on the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ and distorted the facts in applying it to the transactions carried out by the applicant after 21 December 2007;

                           —

                           the General Court also erred in law as regards the transactions before 21 December 2007 in interpreting the concept of ‘actual beneficiary’ as developed in the case-law.

               3.

               The General Court erred in law in adopting a decision that infringes the right to effective judicial protection. The contested order upholds a merely theoretical notion of that right, which prevents the applicant from having proper access, and without needing to resort to infringing the law, to the preliminary reference procedure in order to call in question the contested decision.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-334/01: MFE Marienfelde GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark HIPPOVIT — Application for Community word mark HIPOVITON — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-334/01: MFE Marienfelde GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark HIPPOVIT - Application for Community word mark HIPOVITON - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to be heard)
   (2004/C 239/33)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-334/01: MFE Marienfelde GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by S. Rojahn and S. Freytag, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Joly and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Vétoquinol AG, fomerly Chassot AG, established in Bern (Switzerland), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2001 (Case R 578/2000-4), relating to opposition proceedings between MFE Marienfelde GmbH and Vétoquinol AG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 September 2001 (Case R 578/2000-4);

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant;

               4.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-457/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2010 by AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-321/05: AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc v European Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/18

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2010 by AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 1 July 2010 in Case T-321/05: AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc v European Commission
   (Case C-457/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 301/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca plc (represented by: M. Brealey QC, M. Hoskins QC, D. Jowell, Barristers, F. Murphy, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2010 in Case T-321/05;

               —

               annul Commission Decision (2005) 1757 final of 15 June 2005 (Case COMP A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca);

               —

               in the alternative, reduce, at the Court’s discretion, the fine imposed on the Appellants in Article 2 of the contested Commission Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellants rely upon several errors of law in the Judgment. The errors are summarised under the separate headings that follow:

                  Definition of the relevant product market. The General Court has erred in law by upholding the Commission’s findings in the Decision on the relevant product market, that for the period 1993-2000 proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) were in a market of their own. There are two grounds of appeal.
               The first ground of appeal has two principal parts. First, that the General Court has erred by failing to conduct a temporal analysis of the evidence thereby making a finding as to the relevant product market in 1993 on the basis of the state of competition between PPIs and H2 blockers in 2000. Second, that the General Court erred by ignoring the fact that the increase in use of PPIs was gradual on the basis that the practices of prescribing doctors, characterised by ‘inertia’ was irrelevant to the exercise of market definition.
               The second ground of appeal is that the question of the overall cost of treatment by H2 blockers as opposed to PPIs is fundamental to any purported reliance on price differentials in the exercise of market definition and the General Court erred by failing to take the overall cost of treatment into account.

                  The first abuse of a dominant position, relating to supplementary protection certificates. The grounds of appeal on the first abuse fall into two principal parts. First, the General Court has erred in law in its assessment of what constitutes competition on the merits. The General Court was wrong in assessing whether the Appellant’s representations to patent offices were objectively misleading to have dismissed as irrelevant the reasonableness and bona fides of the Appellant’s understanding of its legal rights to a SPC. Lack of transparency is insufficient for a finding of regulatory abuse, there should be a requirement for deliberate fraud or deceit. Second, the General Court has erred in law in its assessment of what constitutes conduct tending to restrict competition. The General Court was wrong to find that the mere act of applying for an intellectual property right that may come into force some 5-6 years later was conduct that could be said to tend to restrict competition regardless of whether the right is ultimately granted and/or enforced. This is because the conduct is too disconnected or remote from the market said to be affected.

                  The second abuse of a dominant position: the withdrawal of marketing authorisations. The grounds of appeal on the second abuse fall into two principal parts. First, the General Court has erred in law in its assessment of what constitutes competition on the merits. The General Court was wrong to decide that the exercise of an unfettered right under Community law is a failure to compete on the merits.

               Second, the General Court has erred in law in its assessment of what constitutes conduct tending to restrict competition. The General Court was wrong to find that the simple exercise of a legal right under Community law tends to restrict competition. Alternatively, if the Court of Justice considers that the exercise of a right afforded by Community law could in principle amount to an abuse, then there must be something more for there to be a finding of abuse than a mere tendency to distort competition. The Appellants submit that the Commission should be required to prove that the exercise of the validly held right tended to eliminate any effective competition. This would be similar to the conditions in cases concerning compulsory licensing, which effectively the second abuse is concerned with.

                  Fines. The General Court wrongly applied Article 15(2) of Regulation 17 (1) when it failed to object to the Commission’s calculation of the fine and failed to take proper account of the novelty of the alleged abuses, of the absence of any material effects on competition, and other mitigating circumstances.

      (1)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 p. 87


title: Case F-56/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 June 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Action for damages — Access of the administration to an official’s lodgings — Respect for the home and private life)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/60

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 June 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-56/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action for damages - Access of the administration to an official’s lodgings - Respect for the home and private life)
   2010/C 221/95
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, then by G. Cipressa and L. Mansullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s application seeking, first, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered because agents of the Commission entered his lodgings in Luanda on 8 April 2002 and, secondly, the provision of copies of the photos taken at that time and the destruction of all documentation connected with that event.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Marcuccio EUR 5 000;

               2.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 11 September 2008, in so far as it rejected Mr Marcuccio’s application of 24 April 2008 that he be sent photographs, that photographs be destroyed and that he be provided with information relating to the destruction of the photographs;

               3.

               Dismisses the rest of the claims in the application;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay one quarter of Mr Marcuccio’s costs;

               5.

               Orders Mr Marcuccio to pay three quarters of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 48.


title: Case C-302/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/10

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-302/09)
   2009/C 256/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (notified on 10 January 2000 under document number C(1999) 4268) (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit within which Italy was to have withdrawn the scheme and recovered the aid unlawfully granted expired two months after notification of the decision. More than nine years later, the Italian authorities has recovered less than 2 %.


title: Case T-710/14: Action brought on 6 October 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Council

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/63

         Action brought on 6 October 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills v Council
   (Case T-710/14)
   2014/C 409/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 18/c/01/14 of the Council of the European Union of 23 July 2014; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Council’s Decision 18/c/01/14 of 24 July 2014 whereby the Council refused the applicant’s confirmatory application for access under Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to certain documents related to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 in that i) not all documents identified by the Council fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice; and ii) there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the applicant’s access to documents request.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in so far as it did not provide partial access to the documents requested.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the scope of the applicant’s request for access to documents.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.


title: Case C-373/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon (Request for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production — Discretion granted to the Member States — Discrimination — Articles 32 EC and 34 EC)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon
   (Case C-373/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Common Agricultural Policy - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Additional payment for specific types of farming and quality production - Discretion granted to the Member States - Discrimination - Articles 32 EC and 34 EC)
   2013/C 344/13
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Panellinios Sindesmos Viomikhanion Metapiisis Kapnou

      Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Agrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon,

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Symvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) — Interpretation of Articles 2, 32 and 34 EC — Additional payment for specific types of farming — Possibility given to the Member States to determine different proportions of the component of the national ceilings for the purposes of making the additional payment — Differences in treatment of producers of the same products according to the use made of that power by each Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   The examination of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-540/11: Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/42

         Action brought on 4 October 2011 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk and Others v Commission
   (Case T-540/11)
   2011/C 347/76
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk B.V. (Sint Anthonis, Netherlands); Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak (Oosterwolde, Netherlands); Mulders Agro VOF (Heerle, Netherlands); Melkbedrijf Engelen V.O.F. (Grashoek, Netherlands), Melkveebedrijf de Peel B.V. (Asten, Netherlands); and M. Moonen (Nederweert, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Mazel and A. van Beelen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               principally: grant the application for compensation under Article 340 TFEU and declare that the applicants are entitled to financial compensation in the amounts claimed as set out in Annexes 13 to 18, which the Commission is obliged to pay, for the damage suffered by the applicants in consequence of the unlawful adoption and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector;

               —

               in the alternative: grant the application for compensation under Article 340 TFEU and declare that the applicants are entitled to financial compensation in the amounts claimed as set out in Annexes 13 to 18, which the Commission is obliged to pay, for the damage suffered by the applicants in consequence of the lawful adoption and application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from an unlawful act on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of Community law, consisting in a breach of the principle of proportionality. The adjustment by means of Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 (1) of the negative fat correction system in the detailed rules applying Regulation No 1788/2003 was, from the outset, unsuited to ensuring the achievement of the aims of those regulations — to reduce the imbalance between supply and demand on the milk and milk-product market and resulting structural surpluses — and the adjustment at issue imposes a heavy and disproportionate burden on the applicants, which jeopardises the management of their businesses. Accordingly, there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Second plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from an unlawful act on account of an infringement of the fundamental principles of Community law, consisting in a breach of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession as referred to in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. In adopting Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006, the Commission mistakenly assumed that that regulation was underpinned by a legitimate objective that was in the public interest and, moreover, its assessment of the various interests involved was incomplete, which must be characterised as unlawful conduct. The resulting damage suffered and still being suffered by the applicants must therefore be made good.

               3.

               Third plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from a lawful act on account of the infringement of the principle ‘égalité devant les charges publiques’ (equality in the discharge of public burdens). The damage suffered and still being suffered by the applicants as a result of the negative fat correction adjusted by Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 is real and ongoing, and disproportionately affects the applicants as a special category of undertaking by comparison with other undertakings in the same sector. Furthermore, this damage exceeds the boundaries of commercial risk associated with activities in the sector concerned, and the amending regulation underlying the damage is not justified by a general economic interest. Accordingly, the European Union, or at least the Commission, must make good that damage, or at least provide reasonable compensation.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: non-contractual liability of the Commission arising from a lawful act on account of a breach of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession as referred to in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Owing to the lack of any legitimate public-interest objective for the fat correction adjustment, breach of the requisite ‘fair balance’ in the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 and the Commission’s failure to make provision in that regard for appropriate compensation to prevent or to make good any adverse effect of that regulation on the rights to property of the ‘vetmelkers’ (high-fat milk producers) concerned and damage arising therefrom, the Commission is liable under Article 340 TFEU for the damage actually suffered and still being suffered by the applicants for which compensation is payable.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 of 4 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 2006 L 274, p. 6).


title: Case C-49/08: Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Sandra Raulin v French Republic

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/7

         Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Sandra Raulin v French Republic
   (Case C-49/08)
   (2008/C 183/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Sandra Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

      Defendant: French Republic
   By order of 16 May 2008 the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared that it clearly had no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the action and ordered Mrs Raulin to pay her own costs.


title: Case C-330/08: Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/9

         Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-330/08)
   (2008/C 272/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and G. Rozet, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/35/EC expired on 30 April 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the measures necessary for transposition.

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.


title: Case C-41/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the case of Levob Verzekeringen B.V., OB Bank N.V., c.s, against Staatssecretaris van Fiananciën

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 30 January 2004 in the case of Levob Verzekeringen B.V., OB Bank N.V., c.s, against Staatssecretaris van Fiananciën
   (Case C-41/04)
   (2004/C 94/38)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden of 30 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Levob Verzekeringen B.V., OB Bank N.V., c.s, against Staatssecretaris van Fiananciën on the following questions:

               1

                           (a)

                           Are Article 2(1) and Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Article 6(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the acquisition of software, such as that in the present case and on terms such as those at issue in this dispute – whereby separate payment is stipulated in respect of the standard software, recorded on a carrier, developed and put on the market by the supplier, on the one hand, and the subsequent customisation thereof to the meet the purchaser's requirements, on the other – must be regarded as a single supply?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, are these provisions to be interpreted as meaning that this supply must be regarded as a service (of which the supply of the goods, namely the carriers, forms part)?

                           (c)

                           If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is Article 9 of the Sixth Directive (in the version in force until 6 May 2002) to be interpreted as meaning that this service is supplied at the place referred to in Article 9(1)?

                           (d)

                           If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, which part of Article 9(2) of the Sixth Directive is applicable?

               2

                           (a)

                           If the answer to Question 1a is in the negative, are the provisions referred to therein to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of non-customised software on the carriers must be regarded as a supply of tangible property for which the agreed separate price constitutes the consideration for the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to this question is in the negative, is Article 9 of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the service is supplied at the place referred to in Article 9(1) or at one of the places referred to in Article 9(2)?

                           (c)

                           Does the same apply to the service consisting of the customisation of software as applies to the provision of the standard software?


title: Case T-471/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Toland v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Audit report on the parliamentary assistance allowance — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Toland v Parliament
   (Case T-471/08) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Audit report on the parliamentary assistance allowance - Refusal of access - Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to protection of the decision-making process)
   2011/C 211/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ciarán Toland (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Burke, Solicitor, E. Regan, SC, and J. Newman, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by B. Weis Fogh and C. Vang, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by J. Heliskoski, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and H. Leppo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, S. Johannesson and K. Petkovska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 11 August 2008, Reference No A(2008) 10636, in so far as it refuses access to Report No 06/02 of the Internal Audit Service entitled ‘Audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 11 August 2008, Reference No A(2008) 10636, in so far as it refuses access to Report No 06/02 of the Internal Audit Service of the Parliament of 9 January 2008 entitled ‘Audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance’;

               2.

               Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Ciarán Toland;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-55/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — UEFA v Commission (Television broadcasting — Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC — Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society — European Football Championship — Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law — Statement of reasons — Articles 49 EC and 86 EC — Right to property)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — UEFA v Commission
   (Case T-55/08) (1)

   (Television broadcasting - Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society - European Football Championship - Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law - Statement of reasons - Articles 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property)
   2011/C 103/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) (Nyon, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Bell, K. Learoyd, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and B. Keane, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Benyon and E. Montaguti, Agents, assisted by J. Flynn QC and M. Lester, Barrister)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Jackson, and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare and B. Kennelly, Barristers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case T-402/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Decision ordering an inspection — Proportionality — Appropriateness — Nececssity — Absence of arbitrariness — Statement of reasons)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2014 — Orange v Commission
      (Case T-402/13) (1)

      (Competition - Administrative procedure - Decision ordering an inspection - Proportionality - Appropriateness - Nececssity - Absence of arbitrariness - Statement of reasons)
      (2015/C 016/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission decisions C (2013) 4103 final and C (2013) 4194 final of 25 and 27 June 2013, relating to a procedure under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 addressed respectively to France Telecom SA and Orange and to all companies directly or indirectly controlled by them.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Orange to bear the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


Avis juridique important

|

E1995P0003

Request for an advisory opinion by Stavanger byrett by decision of that court of 5 October 1995 in the case of Torgeir Langeland v. Norske Fabricom A/S (Case E-3/95)

Official Journal C 149 , 23/05/1996 P. 0011 - 0011

Request for an advisory opinion by Stavanger byrett by decision of that court of 5 October 1995 in the case of Torgeir Langeland v. Norske Fabricom A/S (Case E-3/95) (96/C 149/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 5 October 1995 of Stavanger byrett (Stavanger City Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 December 1995, for an advisory opinion in the case of Torgeir Langeland v. Norske Fabricom A/S, on the following questions:1. Does the exception clause contained in Article 3 (3) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC cover the rights of an employee to coverage of insurance premiums for non-statutory pension schemes or does the exception only apply to the right to pension insurance payments from such schemes?2. Is Article 3 (1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC mandatory in the sense that an employee may not legally accept a disadvantageous amendment to his employment contract when the reason for the amendment is to be found in a transfer of an entreprise?


title: Case T-343/09: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2011 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/16

         Order of the General Court of 27 June 2011 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)
   (Case T-343/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 238/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and subsequently S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 1728/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH and Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.