title: Case T-484/15: Action brought on 20 August 2015 — KV/EACEA

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/25

         Action brought on 20 August 2015 — KV/EACEA
   (Case T-484/15)
   (2015/C 371/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: KV (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision EACEA/MH/OG/OKRAPF15D013150 of the Head of Unit of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency on the financing of Agreement No 519177-LLP-1-2011-1-GR-KA3-KA3NW with regard to the project ‘Facilitating and fostering digital competence through volunteers’ project’;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in distinguishing between ‘usual’ and ‘additional’ service provided by the applicants’ partners/shareholders during the project in question, as the EACEA manifestly disregarded the nature of the services provided by the partners, the clear will of the applicant’s general assembly to address and regulate such services as it considered them to constitute a distinct category that was not falling under the provisions of the Statutes, and the fact that the services provided by the partners in the project in question met all the requirements of the aforementioned decision of the general assembly.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a second manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           The contested decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment as regards the reasoning of the decision relating to the link of subordination between the partners/shareholders and the applicant, the existence of which was clearly established in the evidence submitted to the EACEA.


title: Case C-377/06: Action brought on 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/17

         Action brought on 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-377/06)
   (2006/C 261/31)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, in respect of the province of Åland, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1), or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17


title: Case T-430/10: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission (Environment  — Integrated pollution prevention and control  — Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries  — Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate  — Dismissal  — Discontinuance  — Removal from the register)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/34

         Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Magnesitas de Rubián and Others v Commission
   (Case T-430/10) (1)

   ((Environment - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries - Application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate - Dismissal - Discontinuance - Removal from the register))
   2014/C 135/43
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Magnesitas de Rubián, SA (Incio, Spain); Magnesitas Navarras, SA (Zubiri, Spain); and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia (Athens, Greece) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, application for the annulment of Chapter 3 of the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Cement, Lime and Magnesium Oxide Manufacturing Industries (OJ 2010 C 166), entitled ‘Magnesium Oxide Industry (dry process route based on mined natural magnesite)’, and the references to the magnesium oxide industry in that document and, in the alternative, application for the annulment of point 3.5.5.4 of that document.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

               2.

               Case T-430/10 is removed from the Register of the General Court.

               3.

               Magnesitas de Rubián, SA, Magnesitas Navarras, SA and Ellinikoi Lefkolithoi Anonymos Metalleftiki, Viomichaniki, Naftiliaki kai Emporiki Etaireia shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 October 1996 in Case T-137/96 R: Valio Oy v. Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures - Admissibility - Common agricultural policy - Standards for spreadable fats - Prohibition of the use of reserved sales descriptions - Application - Division of powers between the Commission and the national authorities)

text:
7 . 12 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 370 / 13
Lille Bar, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:             1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Arthur Brautigam and Jan-Peter Hix), supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Gerard                  2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.
Rozet) — application for annulment of Council Regulation
( EC ) No 1868/94 of 27 July 1994 establishing a quota                 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
system in relation to the production of potato starch ( OJ
No L 197, 30 . 7. 1994, p. 4 ) — the Court of First Instance
( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 1996, in which it:                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                                  of 21 October 1996
                                                                       in Case T-107/96 R: Pantochim SA v. Commission of the
2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of                                   European Communities
     the Council;
                                                                       (State aid — Administrative procedure pending —
3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                      Application for an injunction requiring the Commission to
                                                                       direct a Member State to modify the conditions for the
(!) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                       grant of aid — Injunction involving a measure beyond the
                                                                           Commission 's powers — Dismissal of the application)
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/30 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 25 October 1996                             In Case T-107/96 R : Pantochim SA, established at Feluy
                                                                       ( Belgium ), represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the
in Case T-26/96: Orlando Lopes v. Court of Justice of the              Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (^                              the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11              rue Goethe, v.
(Officials — Action for annulment of measures — Act                    Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard
adversely affecting an official — Action for damages —                 Rozet and Herve Lehman ) — application for an interim
                             Inadmissible)                             measure requiring the Commission to direct France , in a
                                                                       procedure pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                            ( 96/C 370/29 )
                                                                       of the EC Treaty, to grant the applicant provisional
                                                                       exemption from duty on biodiesel for a quantity of 20 000
                (Language of the case: French)                         tonnes a year — the President of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       has made an order on 21 October 1996 , the operative part
In Case T-26/96 : Orlando Lopes, an official of the Court of           of which is as follows :
Justice of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by Marc Kleyr, of the                          1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 17 Rue Louvigny, v. Court                  1.   Costs are reserved.
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
Millett and Aloyse May ) — application for annulment of a
memorandum of the Head of the Portuguese Translation
Division of the Court of Justice of 21 January 1994 and of a
document entitled 'Analysis of sample I' dated 29 June
 1995 , both of which documents were submitted by the                                 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
defendant in response to written questions put by the Court                      OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance in Joined Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94                                         of 14 October 1996
Lopes v. Court of Justice; annulment of the decision of the
Registrar of the Court of Justice, communicated by                     in Case T-l 3 7/96 R: Valio Oy v. Commission of the
memorandum of 21 July 1995 , not to act on the applicant's                                   European Communities
request, submitted on 7 July 1995, seeking the cessation of             (Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
the alleged misuse of powers or authority; annulment of the             Common agricultural policy — Standards for spreadable
decision of the Court's complaints committee of 22 January             fats — Prohibition of the use of reserved sales descriptions
 1996 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant on            — Application — Division of powers between the
 3 October 1995 ; and compensation for the material and                           Commission and the national authorities)
non-material damage which the applicant claims to have
suffered as a result of the conduct of the servants of the                                          ( 96/C 370/31 )
 Court of Justice — the Court of First Instance ( Second
 Chamber), composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, and H.                                (Language of the case: English)
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
 Registrar, made an order on 25 October 1996, the operative            In Case T-l 37/96 R: Valio Oy, established at Helsinki,
part of which is as follows :                                           represented by Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic,
 ---pagebreak--- No c 370/ 14        L en                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                   use of the third option laid down in the third paragraph of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue                    Article 45 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, that is he
Ermesinde, v. Commission of the European Communities                  elected to have his pension paid in the currency of the
( Agent: Xavier Lewis ) — application for suspension of               country where the institution in question has its seat. Thus
operation of a Commission ' decision' contained in the letter         no change was necessary with respect to the situation prior
of 25 June 1996 to the Permanent Representative of the                to retirement ( same currency, same bank , same account
Republic of Finland to the European Union and                         number to which to credit the monthly payments ).
communicated to the applicant by the Finnish
Elintarvikevirasto, in so far as it concerned the Voilevi and
Voimariini brands — the President of the Court of First
                                                                      However, in June 1995 the applicant received a
Instance made an order on 14 October 1996 , the operative             communication concerning the ' recovery of amounts
part of which is as follows:                                          overpaid in the context of the annual review of
                                                                      remunerations for 1995 '. It should be pointed out that Bfrs
1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.                163 270 were credited in June 1993 , whereas Bfrs 228 215
                                                                      were credited in December 1994 . On the basis of those
                                                                      facts , the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
2.  The costs are reserved.
                                                                      — Infringement of Articles 63 and 64 of the Staff
                                                                           Regulations inasmuch as a weighting which was
                                                                           arbitrarily calculated was unlawfully applied to the
                                                                           remunerations. It is obvious that such a weighting
Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Italo Telchini against                   cannot be established arbitrarily or discretionally as
       the Commission of the European Communities                          regards the criteria to be applied even where the
                        ( Case T- 116/96 )                                 declared intention is to make the purchasing power of
                          ( 96/C 370/32 )
                                                                           all beneficiaries equal . In this instance, however, at least
                                                                           recently, more importance has been attached to the
                                                                           criterion of the relationship between the rates of
                (Language of the case: Italian)                            exchange of the various currencies, in comparison with
                                                                           that of the cost of living, namely factors not envisaged
                                                                           in the provisions of the Staff Regulations .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 1996 by
                                                                      — Breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate
Italo Telchini , residing at Bolzano ( Italy ), represented by
Bruno Telchini, of the Bolzano Bar, with an address for
                                                                           expectations and acquired rights in respect of amounts
                                                                           of pension inasmuch as his expectations with regard to
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Becker &
                                                                           pension have been disappointed . The applicant
 Cahen, 3 rue des Foyers .
                                                                           emphasizes that during his period of employment he
                                                                           was always remunerated in Belgian francs and he has
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               therefore acquired rights to a pension in that currency.
                                                                           To deprive him of part of such remuneration on the
                                                                           ground of the cost of living of the place where he resides
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from                         constitutes unjustified discrimination and thus wrongful
    January 1996 and order the Commission to adjust said                   conduct by the Commission .
     remuneration as appropriate henceforth, pursuant to
     Council Regulation ( EC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 2963/95
     of 18 December 1995 f 1 ) adjusting the remuneration
     and pensions of officials and other servants of the              — Erroneous and contradictory application of the
                                                                           principle of legal certainty in the matter of retrospective
     European Communities and the weightings applied
     thereto .                                                             revocation of lawful acts and recovery of the alleged
                                                                           overpayment. The Commission's conduct to the
                                                                           detriment of its retired officials has become even more
 — order the defendant to pay interest at the current rate                 prejudicial and arbitrary by retroactively recovering
     and the costs of the proceedings .                                    overpaid sums in application of Regulation ( EC,
                                                                           Euratom , ECSC ) No 2963/95 . In the past, in cases
                                                                           where the amount of the pension was to be adjusted,
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       the Commission did not recover the negative amount.
                                                                            Now it has instead withheld it, setting the number of
 The applicant, a retired official of Italian nationality,                  monthly payments below that permitted by the Council
                                                                            Regulation .
 contests the way in which the defendant has applied to him
 Regulation ( EC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 2963/95 .
                                                                       (') OJ No L 310 , 22 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
 The applicant observes in this regard that, upon retirement
 in December 1983 , he decided to return to Italy, making


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-228/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): The Gillette Company, Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 6(1)(c) — Limitations on the protection conferred by the trade mark — Use by a third party where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-228/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): The Gillette Company, Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 6(1)(c) - Limitations on the protection conferred by the trade mark - Use by a third party where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service)
   (2005/C 132/15)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-228/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus (Finland), made by decision of 23 May 2003, received at the Court on 26 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between The Gillette Company, Gillette Group Finland Oy and LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The lawfulness or otherwise of the use of the trade mark under Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks depends on whether that use is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product.
               Use of the trade mark by a third party who is not its owner is necessary in order to indicate the intended purpose of a product marketed by that third party where such use in practice constitutes the only means of providing the public with comprehensible and complete information on that intended purpose in order to preserve the undistorted system of competition in the market for that product.
               It is for the national court to determine whether, in the case in the main proceedings, such use is necessary, taking account of the nature of the public for which the product marketed by the third party in question is intended.
               Since Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 makes no distinction between the possible intended purposes of products when assessing the lawfulness of the use of the trade mark, the criteria for assessing the lawfulness of the use of the trade mark with accessories or spare parts in particular are thus no different from those applicable to other categories of possible intended purposes for the products.

               2.

               The condition of ‘honest use’ within the meaning of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104, constitutes in substance the expression of a duty to act fairly in relation to the legitimate interests of the trade mark owner.
               The use of the trade mark will not be in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters if, for example:

                           —

                           it is done in such a manner as to give the impression that there is a commercial connection between the third party and the trade mark owner;

                           —

                           it affects the value of the trade mark by taking unfair advantage of its distinctive character or repute;

                           —

                           it entails the discrediting or denigration of that mark;

                           —

                           or where the third party presents its product as an imitation or replica of the product bearing the trade mark of which it is not the owner.

                     The fact that a third party uses a trade mark of which it is not the owner in order to indicate the intended purpose of the product which it markets does not necessarily mean that it is presenting it as being of the same quality as, or having equivalent properties to, those of the product bearing the trade mark. Whether there has been such presentation depends on the facts of the case, and it is for the referring court to determine whether it has taken place by reference to the circumstances.
               Whether the product marketed by the third party has been presented as being of the same quality as, or having equivalent properties to, the product whose trade mark is being used is a factor which the referring court must take into consideration when it verifies that that use is made in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

               3.

               Where a third party that uses a trade mark of which it is not the owner markets not only a spare part or an accessory but also the product itself with which the spare part or accessory is intended to be used, such use falls within the scope of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 89/104 in so far as it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of the product marketed by the latter and is made in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.


title: Joined Cases C-201/10 and C-202/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH (C-201/10), Vion Trading GmbH (C-202/10) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 3 — Recovery of an export refund — 30-year limitation period — Limitation rule forming part of the general civil law of a Member State — Application ‘by analogy’ — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH (C-201/10), Vion Trading GmbH (C-202/10) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Joined Cases C-201/10 and C-202/10) (1)

   (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 3 - Recovery of an export refund - 30-year limitation period - Limitation rule forming part of the general civil law of a Member State - Application ‘by analogy’ - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 194/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH (C-201/10), Vion Trading GmbH (C-202/10)

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Recovery of an export refund wrongly received by the exporter by reason of irregularities committed by the latter — Application of national legislation providing for a 30-year limitation period — Principles of legal certainty and proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, the principle of legal certainty does not preclude in principle, in the context of the protection — as defined by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests — of the European Union’s financial interests and pursuant to Article 3(3) of that regulation, the national authorities and courts of a Member State from applying ‘by analogy’ to proceedings relating to repayment of a wrongly granted export refund a limitation period derived from a general provision of national law, provided, however, that such application resulting from a judicially determined practice was sufficiently foreseeable, a matter which it is for the referring court to establish.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, the principle of proportionality precludes, in the context of exercise by the Member States of the power which they are given by Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95, application of a 30-year limitation period to proceedings relating to repayment of wrongly received refunds.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the cases in the main proceedings, the principle of legal certainty precludes a ‘longer’ limitation period within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 from resulting from a limitation period under the general law that is reduced by case-law so that, when applied, it complies with the principle of proportionality, since, in any event, the four-year limitation period provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 can be applied in such circumstances.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-515/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU — Old-age benefits — Difference of treatment on the ground of age — Civil servants from a Member State under the age of 45 who leave that Member State to take up employment in another Member State or within an EU institution)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-515/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU - Old-age benefits - Difference of treatment on the ground of age - Civil servants from a Member State under the age of 45 who leave that Member State to take up employment in another Member State or within an EU institution))
   (2016/C 098/16)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: N. Ioannou and D. Kalli, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that by failing to repeal, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, the age-related criterion in Article 27 of Law 97 (Ι)/1997 on Pensions which deters workers from leaving their Member State of origin in order to work in another Member State, or within an EU institution, or other international organisation and which has the effect of creating unequal treatment between migrant workers including those who work within the EU institutions or within another international organisation, on the one hand, and civil servants who have worked in Cyprus, on the other, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU and under Article 4(3) TEU;

               2)

               Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case F-46/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2008 — Tzirani v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Recruitment — Appointment in grade — Promotion — Post of director — Rejection of candidature — Implementation of a judgment annulling an appointment decision — Admissibility)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/57

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2008 — Tzirani v Commission
   (Case F-46/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Recruitment - Appointment in grade - Promotion - Post of director - Rejection of candidature - Implementation of a judgment annulling an appointment decision - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 313/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie Tzirani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision adopted by the Commission of the European Communities on 30 August 2006 to appoint Mr D. J. to the post of Director of Directorate B ‘Staff Regulations: Policy, Management and Advisory Services’ of the Directorate-General (DG) ‘Personnel and Administration’ and consequently to reject the applicant's candidature for that post; and, secondly, an order that the Commission is to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities rejecting the candidature of Mrs Tzirani for the post of Director of Directorate B ‘Staff Regulations: Policy, Management and Advisory Services’ of the Directorate-General (DG) ‘Personnel and Administration’;

               2.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, dated 30 August 2006, appointing Mr D. J. to the post of Director of Directorate B ‘Staff Regulations: Policy, Management and Advisory Services’ of the Directorate-General (DG) ‘Personnel and Administration’;

               3.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mrs Tzirani EUR 10 000 damages;

               4.

               for the rest, dismisses the action;

               5.

               orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs and to pay Mrs Tzirani's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170 of 21.7.2007, p. 42.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2000 in Case T-43/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Council of the European Union (Association regime for overseas countries and territories — Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Proceedings for interim measures — Unnecessary to give a decision)

text:
C 192/16               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported
                         of 16 May 2000                                   by Government of Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and
                                                                          M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
in Case T-121/99: Sean Irving v Commission of the                         service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch and Wolter,
                   European Communities (1)                               11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union (Agents
                                                                          J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, (Agent T. van Rijn), Kingdom of Spain
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post                    (Agent M. López-Monis Gallego) and French Republic (Agent:
     — Time-limits for proceedings — Rights of the defence)               C. Chavance) — application for partial suspension of the
                                                                          operation of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November
                         (2000/C 192/27)                                  1997 amending at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the
                                                                          association of the overseas countries and territories with the
                                                                          European Economic Community (OJ 1997 L 329 p. 50) —
                   (Language of the case: English)                        the President of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has made an order on 6 April 2000, the
In Case T-121/99: Sean Irving, a former official of the                   operative part of which is as follows:
Commission, represented by N. Butler, Barrister, and J.
McGuill, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1. It is unnecessary to give a decision on the application for interim
at the Chambers of S. Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume v                         measures.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application for annulment of the decisions of the Com-                  2. Costs are reserved.
mission of 16 July 1998 removing the applicant from his post
and of 26 February 1999 rejecting the complaint lodged by
the applicant against the first decision — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 6 April 2000
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          in Case T-44/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Association regime for overseas countries and territories —
                                                                          Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 2553/97 — Proceedings for interim measures)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 192/29)
                         of 6 April 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case T-43/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                Council of the European Union                             In Case T-44/98 R II, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established
                                                                          at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, Advo-
(Association regime for overseas countries and territories —              cate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Proceedings for                      Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      interim measures — Unnecessary to give a decision)                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported
                                                                          by Government of Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and
                         (2000/C 192/28)                                  M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch and
                                                                          Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Communities, (Agent T. van Rijn), supported by Council of
                                                                          the European Union (Agents J. Huber and G. Houttuin),
In Case T-43/98 R II, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established             Kingdom of Spain (Agent M. López-Monis Gallego) and French
at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, Advo-               Republic (Agent: C. Chavance) — application, first, for suspen-
cate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der                    sion of the operation of the Commission Decision of


title: Case F-141/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2009 — Hartwig v Commission (Appointment — Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials — Candidates names included on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules — Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/84

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2009 — Hartwig v Commission
   (Case F-141/06) (1)

   (Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Candidates names included on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules - Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2009/C 267/152
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Hartwig (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decisions of the Commission and the Parliament with effect from 16 April 2006 by which the applicant, a member of temporary staff in grade B*7 and successful candidate in Open Competition PE/34/B, was appointed an official in grade B*3, step 2, pursuant to the provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the action in Case F-141/06 Hartwig v Commission.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 40.


title: Case T-288/03: Action brought on 13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
18.10.2003           EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings,
                                                                      Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-288/03)
      (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 April 2003 in Case
      No R 221/2002-4;
                                                                                (2003/C 251/36)
—     order the defendant Office to pay the costs of the pro-                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
      ceedings.
                                                                      An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      13 August 2003 by TeleTech Holdings, Inc., established in
Applicant for Com-          The applicant                             Denver, Colorado, (USA), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri
munity trade mark:                                                    and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.
Community trade mark        Figurative mark ‘XTREME RIGHT             The applicant claims that the Court should:
sought:                     GUARD SPORT’ in respect of
                            goods in Class 3 (non-medicated           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
                            preparations for use in the bath                of 28 May 2003 in Case R-412/2000-1 and, subject to
                            or     shower;    anti-perspirants;             the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment uphold-
                            deodorants; all included in                     ing either the applicant's principal claim or its alternative
                            Class      3)    —      application             claim.
                            No 1486745
Proprietor of mark or       Wilkinson Sword GmbH                      Pleas in law and main arguments
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:
                                                                      Community trade mark           Word mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL
                                                                      in respect of which            VENTURES’ — Registered trade
Mark or sign cited in       The German figurative marks               declaration of invalidity      mark No 134.908, for products
opposition:                 ‘WILKINSON SWORD EXTREME’                 sought:                        in Classes 35 and 38.
                            (Nos 399 23 715 and 399 45 175)
                            in respect of goods in Class 3
                            (shaving cosmetics)                       Owner of the Com-              The applicant.
                                                                      munity trade mark in
                                                                      respect      of      which
Decision        of    the   Rejection of the opposition               declaration of invalidity
Opposition Division:                                                  sought:
Decision of the Board of    Annulment of the decision of the          Person applying for a          Teletech International S.A. (owner
Appeal:                     Opposition Division and refusal           declaration of invalidity:     of the national word mark
                            of the applicant's application for                                       ‘TELETECH INTERNATIONAL’),
                            registration                                                             in respect of certain goods within
                                                                                Class 35 (business management
Pleas in law:               —     Infringement of Article 8(1)                                       for technical services, customer
                                  (b) of Regulation (EC)                                             relations and call centres) and
                                  No 40/94;                                                          Class 38 (telecommunications
                                                                                services).
                            —     No likelihood of confusion;         Decision        of      the    Application upheld in part
                                                                      Cancellation Division:
                            —     No similarity between the
                                  opposing marks.                     Decision of the Board of       Appeal upheld, solely in so far as
                                                                      Appeal:                        the contested decision declared
                                                                                the Community mark in issue
                                                                                invalid in respect of ‘business
                                                                                management assistance services
                                                                                consisting of facilities manage-
                                                                                ment and site selection services’.
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/20             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        18.10.2003
Pleas in law:                —     Breach of the principles of           —     annul the belated express rejection by the appointing
                                   the        coexistence       of             authority on 11 June 2003 of the applicant's administra-
                                   Community marks and                         tive appeal;
                                   national marks and signs
                                   and of the applicant's rights
                                   of defence.
                             —     In the alternative, infringe-
                                   ment of Article 8(1)(b) of
                                   Regulation (EC) No 40/94.             —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant was a candidate in General Competition COM/
                                                                         A/6/01 to constitute a reserve for the recruitment of adminis-
                                                                         trators in the fields of external relations and management of
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by Carla Giulietti                      aid to non-member countries. The notice of competition con-
    against Commission of the European Communities                       tained the requirement of professional experience at a level
                                                                         commensurate with that of the duties described, for a mini-
                       (Case T-293/03)                                   mum period of three years. However, it was stated that officials
                                                                         and other servants of the European Communities were not
                       (2003/C 251/37)                                   required to have the abovementioned professional experience
                                                                         if they had served in category B for at least three years and had
                  (Language of the case: French)                         successfully completed a university course.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Upon submitting her candidature, the applicant submitted as
of the European Communities on 21 August 2003 by Carla                   evidence of her professional experience the fact that she had
                                                                         served for more than three years as President of the
Giulietti, residing in Brussels, represented by P.-P. van
Gehuchten and J. Sambon, lawyers, with an address for service            Management Board of the Foundation ‘Eau pour le Sahel’. By
in Luxembourg.                                                           the contested decision, the Selection Board excluded her on the
                                                                         ground that she did not have the professional experience
                                                                         required.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         In support of her action, the applicant claims that the clause
                                                                         relating to professional experience infringed the principle of
                                                                         equality owing to the fact that such experience is required only
—    annul the decision taken by the Selection Board in com-             for external candidates, while it is not a requirement for can-
     petition COM/A/6/01 to exclude the applicant on the                 didates who are already officials or other servants of the
     ground of lack of professional experience, that decision            European Communities. She also alleges infringement of the
     being contained in the letter from DG ADMIN to the                  principle of legality and a manifest error of assessment in the
     applicant dated 16 October 2002;                                    application by the Selection Board of the clause relating to
                                                                         professional experience.
—    annul the confirmative decision of 21 November 2002;


title: Case T-285/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — CEVA v Commission (Specific programme for research and technological development in the field of research into living resources — Project Seapura — Grant agreement — Arbitration clause — Application for the reimbursement of sums paid in advance under a research financing contract — Reminder letters — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-285/09) (1)

   (Specific programme for research and technological development in the field of research into living resources - Project Seapura - Grant agreement - Arbitration clause - Application for the reimbursement of sums paid in advance under a research financing contract - Reminder letters - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 311/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d'étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Joris, Agent, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the four reminder letters of the Commission dated 11 May 2009, by which it invited the applicant to reimburse the amount paid to it under a grant agreement concluded for a project to be carried out in the context of the specific programme for research and technological development, entitled ‘Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Centre d'étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-437/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Golden Balls Ltd v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GOLDEN BALLS — Earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR — Similarity of the signs — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for annulment filed by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action — Articles 8(5), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Golden Balls Ltd v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)
   (Case T-437/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOLDEN BALLS - Earlier Community word mark BALLON D’OR - Similarity of the signs - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action - Articles 8(5), 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 336/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1310/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Intra-Presse and Golden Balls Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls point 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 May 2011 (Case R 1310/2010-1);

               2.

               Rejects the application for annulment submitted by Intra-Presse;

               3.

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

               4.

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

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case T-193/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2016 — Bodegas Williams & Humbert v EUIPO — Central Hisumer (BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN — Earlier EU word mark THE BOTANICALS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2016 — Bodegas Williams & Humbert v EUIPO — Central Hisumer (BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN)
   (Case T-193/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BOTANIC WILLIAMS & HUMBERT LONDON DRY GIN - Earlier EU word mark THE BOTANICALS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 222/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Central Hisumer, SL (Orihuela, Spain) (represented by: D. Garrido Jiménez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2015 (Case R 594/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Central Hisumer and Bodegas Williams & Humbert.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bodegas Williams & Humbert, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2002 in Case T-340/99: Arne Mathisen AS v Council of the European Union (Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties — Farmed Atlantic salmon — Action for annulment — Undertaking — Circumvention — Obligation to cooperate — Breach — Principle of proportionality — Claim for compensation)

text:
C 202/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.8.2002
     (b) Cases concerning intellectual property rights, as                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Pro-
           cedure, shall be assigned, according to the order in
           which they are registered at the Court Registry, to
           the Second, and Fourth Chambers;                                                       of 4 July 2002
     (c)   The other cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall
           be assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and          in Case T-340/99: Arne Mathisen AS v Council of the
           Fifth Chambers. Such assignment is to be effected                                   European Union (1)
           on the basis of three separate rotas, according to the
           order in which they are registered at the Court
           Registry:
                                                                        (Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties — Far-
                                                                        med Atlantic salmon — Action for annulment — Undertak-
           —     For the cases referred to in Article 236 of the        ing — Circumvention — Obligation to cooperate — Breach
                 EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;           — Principle of proportionality — Claim for compensation)
           —     For the cases concerning the implementation
                 of the rules on competition applicable to
                 undertakings;                                                                   (2002/C 202/28)
           —     For the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
           For the purposes of the rota mentioned in the first
           indent above, the assignment of intellectual property
           cases to the Second and Fourth Chambers on the
           basis of the rota mentioned in paragraph 2(b) shall
           be offset by the assignment of cases to the First,
           Third and Fifth Chambers on a pro rata basis.                In Case T-340/99, Arne Mathisen AS, established in Værøy
                                                                        (Norway), represented by S. Knudtzon, lawyer, with an address
           For the purposes of the rotas referred to in para-           for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union
           graphs 2(a) and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First        (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch), supported by Com-
           Chamber, Extended Composition, presided by the               mission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz
           President of the Court of First Instance, shall not be       and S. Meany): Application for annulment of Council Regu-
           included in those lists every third time the end of a        lation (EC) No 1895/1999 of 27 August 1999 amending
           rota is reached.                                             Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 imposing definitive anti-dump-
                                                                        ing and countervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic
           The President of the Court of First Instance may
                                                                        salmon originating in Norway (OJ 1999 L 233, p. 1) and
           derogate from that order on the ground that cases
                                                                        compensation for damage suffered as a result of the adoption
           are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread
                                                                        of the regulation, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
           of the workload.
                                                                        Extended Composition), composed of: M. Vilaras, President,
                                                                        V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                        J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                        judgment on 4 July 2002, in which it:
Plenary session
At its meeting on 4 July 2002, the Court of First Instance              1.    Dismisses the application;
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 32(1)
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that
where, following the designation of an Advocate General                 2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an                 of the Council;
even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in
plenary session, the rota established in advance in accordance
with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge         3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according to
their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is              (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.


title: Case T-464/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Retegal v Commission

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/25

         Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Retegal v Commission
   (Case T-464/13)
   2013/C 304/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Redes de Telecomunicación Galegas Retegal, SA (Retegal) (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: F. García Martínez y B. Pérez Conde, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-463/13, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by André Pening against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-100/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 181 / 19
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols against                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
              the Council of the European Union
                           ( Case T-99/97)                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 181 /36 )
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-16/97 f 1 ).
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 7 April 1997 by Willem Stols, residing
at Halsteren ( Netherlands ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
Rue de Cessange.                                                         Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Pablo Jimenez
                                                                         Fernandez against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( Case T-101 /97 )
— annul the Council's decision of 13 August 1996                                                      ( 97/C 181 /38 )
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                          (Language of the case: French)
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     adopted by the Council on 27 December 1996                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      by Pablo Jimenez Fernandez, residing at Overijse
                                                                         ( Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 ( M.
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996
                                                                               rejecting the applicant's request that it give
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                               Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                                adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Andre Pening against
                                                                                expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-100/97 )                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                             ( 97/C 181 /37 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
An action against the Commission of the European                         Case T-16/97 (').
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                     ( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
by Andre Pening, residing at Waterloo ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Massimo Lombardini
                                                                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
                                                                                ( Case T- 102/97)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                                                     ( 97/C 181 /39 )
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                       An action against the Commission of the European
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                      Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-443/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of 5 November 1999 in the case of Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GesmbH

text:
C 34/14                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:                          Action brought on 22 November 1999 by the Com-
                                                                       mission of the European Communities against the Italian
     A Member State has implemented Council Directive                                              Republic
     80/987/EEC and designated the State as being liable for
     payment of an employee’s claims against an employer who
     has been declared insolvent. In such a case, is the effect of                             (Case C-444/99)
     the Directive such that an employee may enforce a right to
     a wage guarantee without regard to a national provision
     which excludes certain groups of employees from the right                                  (2000/C 34/27)
     to a wage guarantee but which is not consistent with the
     exception to the Directive which is applicable to the
     Member State?                                                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice on 22 November 1999 by the Commission of
(1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.                                              the European Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius
                                                                       and Stefania Dragone, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                The applicant claims that the Court should:
gericht Wien by order of that court of 5 November 1999
in the case of Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH v Paranova                    1. Declare that, by leaving in force a system of authorization
               Pharmazeutika Handels GesmbH                                and a quota system for combined transport operations, the
                                                                           Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                         (Case C-443/99)                                   Council Directive 92/106/EEC (1) of 7 December 1992 on
                                                                           the establishment of common rules for certain types of
                          (2000/C 34/26)                                   combined transport of goods between Member States, in
                                                                           particular Article 2 thereof;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna) of 5 November 1999,               2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Merck, Sharp &
Dohme GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GesmbH
on the following question:                                             Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
Must Article 7(2) of the First Council Directive of 21 December
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating             Article 2 of Directive 92/106/EEC requires the Member States,
to trade marks (89/104/EEC) (1) be interpreted as meaning              by 1 July 1993, to liberalise the combined transport operations
that a trade mark owner may oppose the marketing of a                  referred to in Article 1 from all quota systems and systems of
pharmaceutical product put on the market under his trade               authorization.
mark where the importer has repackaged it and reaffixed the
trade mark and has complied with the other requirements set
forth in the Court of Justice judgment in Joined Cases                 The Italian Republic has infringed that article because, despite
C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 (2) (the product inside the            having changed the system of special authorisations for
packaging must not be affected, the manufacturer and origin            combined transport operations by converting it into a system
must be clearly indicated, the reputation of the trade mark or         of general authorisations, it has nevertheless kept in force a
its owner must not be damaged as a consequence of poor                 system of authorisations for combined transport operations.
packaging, and the trade mark owner must be given notice
before the repackaged pharmaceutical product is put on sale),
but the marketability of the product would be jeopardised              Moreover, by not issuing any general authorisation in accor-
without such repackaging solely because a significant pro-             dance with Article 1 of the Decree of 27 June 1992 in order
portion of the consumers of pharmaceutical products in the             to enable carriers to undertake combined transport operations,
State of importation is suspicious of pharmaceutical products          the Italian Republic has infringed Article 2 of the directive in
which have clearly been produced for the market of another             so far as it has kept in force a quota system for combined
State (in which a different language is spoken) and are inside         transport operations.
packagings which have been adapted merely by means of
self-stick labels to the domestic provisions governing the sale
of pharmaceutical products?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38.
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
(2) [1996] ECR I-3457.


title: Joined Cases T-493/07, T- 26/08 and T-27/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — GlaxoSmithKline and others v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark FAMOXIN — Earlier national word marks LANOXIN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Proof of use — Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/62

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2009 — GlaxoSmithKline and others v OHIM — Serono Genetics Institute (FAMOXIN)
   (Joined Cases T-493/07, T- 26/08 and T-27/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark FAMOXIN - Earlier national word marks LANOXIN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of use - Article 56(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/109
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: GlaxoSmithKline SpA (Verona, Italy); Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal Lda (Algés, Portugal); and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd (Greenford, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gilbey, Lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Serono Genetics Institute SA, (Évry, France)

      Re:

   Three actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2007 (Case R 8/2007-1), 20 November 2007 (Case R 10/2007-1) and 19 November 2007 (Case R 9/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between, on the one hand, GlaxoSmithkline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome De Portugal Lda and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, and, on the other, Serono Genetics Institute SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08 for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders GlaxoSmithKline SpA, Laboratórios Wellcome de Portugal, Lda and The Wellcome Foundation Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 12 December 2003 in Case C-258/02 P: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/13

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   12 December 2003
   in Case C-258/02 P: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 - Biocidal products - Action for annulment - Inadmissible - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2004/C 94/26)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-258/02 P: Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH, whose registered office is in Kirchheimbolanden (Germany), represented by K. van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats: APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2002 in Case T-339/00 Bactria v Commission [2002] ECR II-2287, seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and L. Ström), with an address for service in Luxembourg, Eurobrom BV, established in Rijswijk (Netherlands), Lonza GmbH, established in Wuppertal (Germany), Arch Chemicals SA, established in Paris (France), and Troy Chemical Company BV, established in Maassluis (Netherlands), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 12 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.


title: Case T-815/14: Action brought on 17 December 2014 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/41

         Action brought on 17 December 2014 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)
   (Case T-815/14)
   (2015/C 065/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Closet Clothing Co. Ltd (Barnet, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Elmslie, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Closed Holding AG (Hamburg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CLOSET’ — Application for registration No 10 802 891

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 423/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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