title: Case C-64/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) (England and Wales), by order of that court of 18 December 1998, in the case of Pace Airline Services Ltd against Aerotrans Luftfahrtagentur GmbH

text:
C 121/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England                 of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court)
and Wales), by order of that court of 9 December 1998,                  (England and Wales), by order of that court of 18 Decem-
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for                 ber 1998, in the case of Pace Airline Services Ltd against
the Home Department, ex parte: Wieslaw Gloszczuk and                                  Aerotrans Luftfahrtagentur GmbH
                       Elzbieta Gloszczuk
                                                                                (Case C-64/99)
                         (Case C-63/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 121/23)
                        (1999/C 121/22)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                        Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) (England
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  and Wales), of 18 December 1998, which was received at the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                   Court Registry on 23 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England and             in the case of Pace Airline Services Ltd against Aerotrans
Wales) of 9 December 1998, which was received at the Court              Luftfahrtagentur GmbH, on the following questions:
Registry on 22 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home
Department, ex parte: Wieslaw Gloszczuk and Elzbieta Glosz-             Where:
czuk, on the following questions:
                                                                        a) company X, incorporated in Member State A, is an agent
                                                                            for a carrier of goods by air;
1. Does Article 44 of the Association Agreement between the
    EEC and the Republic of Poland [‘the Agreement’ (OJ L               b) company X appoints another company (‘Y’) incorporated
    348, 31.12.1993, p. 2)] confer rights of establishment                  in Member State B to conclude contracts for the sale of
    upon a Polish national whose presence within the territory              cargo space between the carrier and third-party consignors
    of a Member State is unlawful under national immigration                on flights operated by the carrier;
    law by reason of a breach of an express condition, imposed
    upon his admission to the territory as a visitor, relating to       c) all relevant activities of company Y are carried out in
    the permitted duration of his stay within that Member                   Member State B;
    State when that breach arose prior to his becoming a
    self-employed person and his application to take up and
    pursue activities under Article 44 of the Agreement?                d) company X and company Y have agreed that their
                                                                            contractual relationship is governed by the laws of Member
                                                                            State A.
2. If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, does Article 44
    of the Agreement have direct effect within the national
    legal systems of Member States, notwithstanding the                 Question 1
    provisions of Article 58 of the Agreement?
                                                                        In the circumstances set out above, are the words ‘sale or the
3. If the answer to the second question is ‘yes’:                       purchase of goods (...) or to negotiate and conclude such
                                                                        transactions (...)’ in Article 1(2) of Council Directive
                                                                        86/653/EEC (1) to be construed as including the activities of
                                                                        company Y?
    i) to what extent may a Member State apply its laws and
         regulations regarding entry and stay, work, labour
         conditions and establishment of natural persons, and
         supply of services, to persons invoking Article 44 of the      Question 2
         Agreement, without violating the proviso contained in
         the penultimate sentence of Article 58 (1) of the              In the circumstances set out above, is the term ‘principal’ in
         Agreement and, inter alia, the principle of pro-               Article 1(2) of the said Directive to be interpreted as including
         portionality?                                                  company X?
    ii) does Article 58, in any and if so what circumstances,           Question 3
         permit the refusal of an application under Article 44
         of the Agreement made by someone whose presence
         in the Member State is otherwise unlawful?                     1. In the circumstances set out above, are the provisions of
                                                                            the said Directive to be interpreted as requiring Member
                                                                            State A to enact implementing rules which provide that
                                                                            their substantive provisions apply in relation to the
                                                                            activities of commercial agents which are carried out
                                                                            exclusively in Member State B?


title: Case T-287/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (real) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark real — Genuine use — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Use of the mark by a third party — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Proof of genuine use — Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (real)
   (Case T-287/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark real - Genuine use - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Use of the mark by a third party - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Proof of genuine use - Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 277/50)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2015 (Case R 2285/2013-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Tayto Group and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.


title: Case T-588/13: Action brought on 7 November 2013 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/28

         Action brought on 7 November 2013 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)
   (Case T-588/13)
   2014/C 24/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A. Weber SA (Rouhling, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 June28 August 2013 given in Case R 257/2013-2

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘JETROC’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 — International Registration No 940 180 designating the European Union

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) CTMR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Case T-387/13: Action brought on 26 July 2013 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/21

         Action brought on 26 July 2013 — Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia v OHIM — Hautrive (COLOMBIANO HOUSE)
   (Case T-387/13)
   2013/C 274/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Pomares Caballero and M. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadine Helene Jeanne Hautrive (Chatou, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               vary the Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2013 in Case R 757/2012-5, on the basis that, in the present case, the conditions for applying the relative ground for refusal of registration under Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met;

               —

               or, failing which, annul the contested decision;

               —

               and, in any event, order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nadine Helene Jeanne Hautrive

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word elements ‘COLOMBIANO HOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 225 798

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Protected Geographical Indication with word elements ‘Café de Colombia’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 14 of Regulation No 510/2006

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 510/2006

               —

               Breach of a procedural requirement through failure to state reasons


title: Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I (Germany)) — Adala Bero v Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13) (Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — Article 16(1) — Detention for the purpose of removal — Detention in prison accommodation — Not possible to provide accommodation for third-country nationals in a specialised detention facility — No such facility in the Land where the third-country national is detained)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/22

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I (Germany)) — Adala Bero v Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate v Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)
   (Joined Cases C-473/13 and C-514/13) (1)

   ((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - Article 16(1) - Detention for the purpose of removal - Detention in prison accommodation - Not possible to provide accommodation for third-country nationals in a specialised detention facility - No such facility in the Land where the third-country national is detained))
   2014/C 315/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof, Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Adala Bero (C-473/13), Ettayebi Bouzalmate (C-514/13)

      Defendants: Regierungspräsidium Kassel (C-473/13), Kreisverwaltung Kleve (C-514/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals must be interpreted as requiring a Member State, as a rule, to detain illegally staying third-country nationals for the purpose of removal in a specialised detention facility of that State even if the Member State has a federal structure and the federated state competent to decide upon and carry out such detention under national law does not have such a detention facility.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

      OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-408/15: Action brought on 24 July 2015 — Globo Comunicação e Participações v OHIM (‘PLIM PLIM’ sounds)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/36

         Action brought on 24 July 2015 — Globo Comunicação e Participações v OHIM (‘PLIM PLIM’ sounds)
   (Case T-408/15)
   (2015/C 320/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A. (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: E. Gaspar, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community sound mark ‘PLIM PLIM’ — Application for registration No 12 826 368

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2015 in Case R 2945/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that Community trade mark No 12 826 368 is valid for the designation of Classes 9, 38 and 41;

               —

               annul the contested decision in part, in so far as it rejected the Community trade mark application;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 April 2003 in Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte (Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantities — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Compensation payable to producers — Heirs and those of similar status — Measure of the national authorities — Time bar — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
18.10.2003              EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 251/1
                                                                            I
                                                                      (Information)
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          2.    Mr. Schulte is ordered to pay the costs.
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
                           of 4 April 2003
          in Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte (1)
(Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantities — Regulation (EEC)
No 2187/93 — Compensation payable to producers — Heirs
and those of similar status — Measure of the national                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
authorities — Time bar — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible
                  and in part clearly unfounded)                                                           (First Chamber)
                          (2003/C 251/01)                                                                  of 10 July 2003
                   (Language of the case: German)                               in Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of
                                                                                Auditors of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                     the European Court Reports)                                (Appeal — Officials — Prior administrative procedure —
                                                                                No complaint — Application manifestly inadmissible —
                                                                                Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded in part)
In Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte, residing in Delbrück
(Germany) (Lawyer: R. Freise) — Appeal against the judgment                                               (2003/C 251/02)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) of 7 February 2002 in Case T-261/94                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Schulte v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II-441, seek-
ing to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent:                                             the European Court Reports)
A.-M. Colaert, assisted by M. Núñez Müller) and Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr, assisted by
M. Núñez Müller) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed                         In Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro, residing in Messina
of R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris                           (Italy) (Lawyer: G. Monforte) — appeal against the order of the
and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 4 April                      Chamber) of 27 September 2002 in Case T-254/01 Di Pietro v
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                                Court of Auditors [2002] ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-929, by
                                                                                which the Court declared manifestly inadmissible the applica-
                                                                                tion by Mr Di Pietro for the annulment of the decision of the
                                                                                Court of Auditors of 22 February 2001 appointing Mr Michel
                                                                                Hervé to the post of Secretary General of that institution, the
1.   The appeal is dismissed;                                                   other party to the proceedings being Court of Auditors of the


title: Case C-173/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2007 — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2007 — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel
   (Case C-173/07)
   (2007/C 155/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland

      Defendant: Diether Schenkel
   Question referred
   Is Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘a flight’ includes in any event the flight from the point of departure to the destination and back in the case where the outward and return flights are booked at the same time?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-443/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges — France) — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Importation, by a person resident in a Member State, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — Ecological subsidy — Conditions — Registration certificate attesting to the nature of the demonstration vehicle)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Limoges — France) — Philippe Bonnarde v Agence de Services et de Paiement
   (Case C-443/10) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Importation, by a person resident in a Member State, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State - Ecological subsidy - Conditions - Registration certificate attesting to the nature of the demonstration vehicle)
   2011/C 347/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Limoges

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Philippe Bonnarde

      Defendant: Agence de Services et de Paiement

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administrative de Limoges — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57), amended by Commission Directive 2003/127/EC of 23 December 2003 (OJ 2004 L 10, p. 29) — Importation, by a person resident in France, of a vehicle already registered in another Member State — National legislation making the grant of an environmental subsidy subject to presentation of a registration certificate bearing the statement ‘demonstration vehicle’ — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 34 and 36 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State from requiring, for the award of the subsidy known as the ‘bonus écologique — Grenelle de l’environnement’ to imported demonstration motor vehicles at the time of registration in that Member State, that the first registration document of those vehicles bear the words ‘demonstration vehicle’.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-115/02: Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Avex Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 144/58               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.6.2002
market and with the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance               was likely to strengthen even further SEB’s position on the
with the undertakings given. The applicant is challenging that         relevant markets.
decision.
                                                                       (1) Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regu-
                                                                           lation (EEC) No 4064/89 and under Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 447/98 (text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001 C 68, p. 3).
In support of its application the applicant relies first of all
on an infringement of essential procedural requirements in
accepting the undertakings proposed by SEB late. Undertakings
must be submitted within three weeks from notification of a
transaction. The Commission allowed SEB to submit new
phase one undertakings five weeks after the transaction was            Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Avex Inc. against the
notified. The applicant claims that those undertakings could in        Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
no circumstances be regarded as enhancing the original                                         Marks and Designs)
undertakings but constituted new undertakings.
                                                                                (Case T-115/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/113)
Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in                               (Language of the case: German)
law in deciding to authorise the operation without carrying
out an in-depth investigation. The applicant claims that the
conditions for authorisation in phase one were not met. The
undertakings proposed did not definitively resolve any serious         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
common market, as required by the Commission Notice on                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
remedies (1).                                                          12 April 2002 by Avex Inc., Tokyo (Japan), represented by
                                                                       J. Hofmann, lawyer. Adolf Ahlers AG, Herford (Germany) was
                                                                       an additional party to the proceedings before the Board of
                                                                       Appeal.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Thirdly, the applicant considers that the Commission made a
manifest error of assessment in that the undertakings imposed          —      annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
on SEB are insufficient to remove the competition concerns.                   Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
The Commission therefore authorised the transaction without                   11 February 2002 (Case No R 634/2001-1) on the
any undertakings on certain markets where there were serious                  registration of the word/figurative sign ‘a’ as a Community
competition concerns. Moreover, an undertaking to grant a                     trade mark;
trade mark licence is not by its nature sufficient to resolve the
competition concerns that the transaction raises. The period           —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
for which the licence is granted is also insufficient for the
licensee to switch Moulinex’s products to its own brand in a
market characterised by strong brand loyalty. Furthermore, the
undertaking to supply the German market will have the effect           Pleas in law and main arguments
of strengthening SEB/Moulinex’s position on that market.
Finally, the fact that the Commission agreed to the same trade
mark being used by different companies within the European             Applicant seeking Com-         Avex Inc.
Union is liable to lead to coordinated behaviour by SEB/               munity trade mark:
Moulinex and the licensees.
                                                                       Community trade mark           The figurative mark ‘a’ for goods
                                                                       sought:                        in Classes 9, 16, 25, 35 and 41
                                                                                (inter alia, clothing, shoe-related
                                                                                items, shoes and boots) — appli-
                                                                                cation no 863142
Fourthly, the applicant considers that the Commission erred            Proprietor of mark or          Adolf Ahlers AG
in law by failing to examine the extent to which the derisory          sign right cited in the
sum paid and the financial aid provided by the French State            opposition proceedings:
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 144/59
Mark or sign right cited      The German national figurative              but was mislaid within the Commission’s services. The appli-
in opposition:                marks ‘a’ for goods in Class 25             cant was thus unable properly to discharge his financial
                              (inter alia, clothing)                      obligations and was required to pay a penalty. As the
                                                                          administrative fault on the Commission’s part is proved, the
Decision of Opposition        Refusal of application for regis-           applicant is entitled to compensation for the pecuniary and
Division:                     tration of mark                             non-pecuniary harm sustained.
Decision of Board of          Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division with respect
                              to goods in Classes 9, 16, 35 and
                              41; affirmation of the decision
                              with respect to goods in Class 25
Pleas in law:                 —     No similarity with the rel-
                                    evant goods in Class 25
                                                                          Action brought on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.
                              —     Significant difference from             against the Commission of the European Communities
                                    the figurative marks
                                                                                (Case T-121/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/115)
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-116/02)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (2002/C 144/114)                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 11 April 2002 by San Paolo S.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by Professor Franco Gallo, Gabriele Escalar and
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Professor Adriano Rossi, Lawyers.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Antonio Aresu,                   —     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, avocat.                      Communities of 11 December 2001 no C54/A/2000/EC,
                                                                                unpublished, declaring incompatible with the internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     market the system of State aid laid down by Italian
                                                                                legislation in the form of tax advantages for banks and
                                                                                banking institutions;
—     order the Commission to make reparation for the pecuni-
      ary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicant,
      amounting to EUR 353;                                               —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                                and all consequential costs.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official of the Commission and at the                 The main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case
material time was on temporary secondment to the Court of                 T-36/02 ABI v Commission (1).
Justice.
In support of his claim for damages, the applicant alleges that           (1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002, p. 14.
the Commission’s mail service received a letter from an Italian
professional body addressed to the applicant and containing a
demand for payment. The letter did not reach the applicant


title: Case C-220/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Star Coaches s. r. o. v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — VAT Directive — Special tax scheme for travel agents — Supply to travel agents of a coach transport service but no other services)

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/4

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Star Coaches s. r. o. v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu
   (Case C-220/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - VAT Directive - Special tax scheme for travel agents - Supply to travel agents of a coach transport service but no other services)
   2012/C 235/05
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Star Coaches s. r. o.

      Defendant: Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nejvyšší správní soud — Interpretation of Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of the special scheme for travel agents to an economic operator which, without being a travel agent, supplies travel agents with a bus transport service but no other transport services

      Operative part of the order

   A transport company which merely carries out the transport of persons by providing coach transport to travel agents and does not provide any other services such as accommodation, tour guiding or advice does not effect transactions falling within the special scheme for travel agents in Article 306 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case T-491/07 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CB v Commission (Competition — Decision by an association of undertakings — Market for the issue of payment cards in France — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’ — Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’, and ‘dormant member “wake-up” mechanism’ — Relevant market — Restriction of competition by effect — Article 81(3) EC — Manifest errors of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Proportionality — Legal certainty)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2016 — CB v Commission
   (Case T-491/07 RENV) (1)

   ((Competition - Decision by an association of undertakings - Market for the issue of payment cards in France - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’ - Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’, and ‘dormant member “wake-up” mechanism’ - Relevant market - Restriction of competition by effect - Article 81(3) EC - Manifest errors of assessment - Principle of sound administration - Proportionality - Legal certainty))
   (2016/C 305/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Pradelles and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Mongin, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris) (represented by: O. de Juvigny and J. Caminati, lawyers); BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Epargne et de Prévoyance (CNCEP) (Paris) (represented by: A. Choffel and S. Hautbourg, lawyers); and Société générale (Paris) (represented by: P. Guibert and P. Patat, lawyers)

      Subject matter

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (COMP/D1/38606 — Groupement des cartes bancaires ‘CB’).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (COMP/D1/38606 — Groupement des cartes bancaires ‘CB’) in so far as the European Commission ordered the Groupement, in Article 2, ‘in future to refrain from any act or any conduct having an identical or similar object’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) and the Commission to bear their own respective costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice;

               4.

               Orders BNP Paribas, BPCE and Société générale to bear their own respective costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2001 in Case T-68/99 Toditec NV v Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract — Counterclaim)

text:
C 259/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            15.9.2001
5.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                    —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
6.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                    —     the parties shall bear their own costs, including those
      Ireland, the French Republic and the Federal Republic of                         relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
      Germany to bear their own costs.
                                                                           3.    In Case T-241/99:
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97, C 378 of 20.12.97, C 94 of 28.3.98 and
    C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                            —     the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant
                                                                                EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for non-material
                                                                                damage;
                                                                                —     the remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                —     the Commission shall, in addition to bearing its own
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                            costs, pay one-quarter of the applicant’s costs.
                            of 3 July 2001
                                                                           (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.98 and C 6 of 8.1.98.
in Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99: E v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Temporary agent — Disciplinary action —
Suspension — Disciplinary measure — Termination without
notice of the contract — Period prescribed by the third
paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— Disregarded — Consequences — Action for annulment
             and damages — No need to adjudicate)                                                     of 16 May 2001
                           (2001/C 259/06)                                 in Case T-68/99 Toditec NV v Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Counterclaim)
In Joined Cases T-24/98 and T-241/98: E, temporary member
of staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in T.I. (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmen-                                  (2001/C 259/07)
tier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application, in                                    (Language of the case: English)
Case T-24/98, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 12 November 1997 to continue to keep the
applicant on suspension from duties and, secondly, seeking an              In Case T-68/99 Toditec NV, established in Antwerp (Belgium),
order requiring the Community to make good the damage                      represented by E. Ballon and H. Dubois, avocats, with an
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision           address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
and, in Case T-241/99, an application, first, for annulment of             European Communities (Agents: E. de March, M. Shotter and
the decision of the Commission of 22 December 1998                         J. Stuyck) — application pursuant to an arbitration clause
imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of termin-              within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now
ation without notice of the temporary-agent contract and,                  Article 238 EC) for the Commission to be required to pay the
secondly, seeking an order requiring the Community to make                 sum of ECU 74 967, plus interest at the rate of 7 % (the legal
good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result            rate applicable in Belgium) as from 5 June 1998, and
of that decision and of the disciplinary procedure — the Court             counterclaim by the Commission for the applicant to be
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,               required to pay it the sum of EUR 54 486, plus interest at the
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,          rate of 7 % as from 31 January 1999 — the Court of First
gave a judgment on 13 July 2001, the operative part of which               Instance, composed of (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio
is as follows:                                                             González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
                                                                           ment on 16 May 2001, in which it:
1.    Cases T-24/98 and T-241/99 are joined for the purposes of
      the judgment.                                                        1.    Allows the applicant’s claim in so far as it seeks reimbursement
                                                                                of expenditure on consumables amounting to EUR 4 642.
2.    In Case T-24/98:
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.
      —     there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims for
            annulment;                                                     3.    Allows the Commission’s counterclaim.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/7
4.    Orders the applicant to pay the Commission the sum of                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      EUR 49 844, plus interest at an annual rate of 7 % as from
      31 January 1999.                                                                              of 7 June 2001
5.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of       in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG v
      the costs incurred by the Commission.                                       Commission of the European Communities (1)
6.    Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs.                (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid incompatible
                                                                          with the common market — Time-limit for investigation —
                                                                          Act of Accession — Declaration No 31 — Statement of
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.99.
                                                                                reasons)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-187/99, Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established
                                                                          in Vienna (Austria), represented by W. Barfuß and
                                                                          H. Wollmann, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                          of 14 June 2001                                 bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                          annulment of Commission Decision 1999/342/EC of 30 Sep-
in Case T-143/99 Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the
                                                                          tember 1998 concerning aid which Austria plans to grant to
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          Agrana Stärke- GmbH to build and convert starch production
                                                                          facilities (OJ 1999 L 131, p. 61) — the Court of First Instance
(EAGGF — Cancellation of financial assistance —                           (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh,
          Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88)                      President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and
                                                                          N. Forwood, Judges; G. Hertzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                          trar, has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
                          (2001/C 259/08)
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Commission.
In Case T-143/99, Hortiplant SAT, established in Amposta
(Spain), represented by C. Fernández Vicién and Iglesias Roa,            (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.
lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Visaggio and J. Guerra Fernández) — application
for the annulment of the Commission decision of 4 March
1999 to cancel the financial assistance granted to Hortiplant
SAT by Commission Decision C(92) 3125 of 3 December
1992 concerning the granting of aid from the EAGGF
Guidance Section pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 4256/88 in the context of a project entitled ‘Initiative in
the form of a pilot project to demonstrate a new and                                               of 14 June 2001
highly efficient method of producing seedlings, as applied to
ornamental and woodland species’ — the Court of First                     in Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, Presi-                                          pean Union (1)
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                        (Officials — Appointment by way of promotion — Annul-
                                                                          ment — Examination of the comparative merits — Manifest
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                 error of assessment)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the                                  (2001/C 259/10)
      Commission, including those in the proceedings for interim
      relief.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                          In Case T-230/99: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council
                                                                          of the European Union, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                          (Belgium), represented by J-N. Louis, G-F. Parmentier and


               25.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 6 December 2012 in the case of Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State
   (Case E-15/12)
   2013/C 118/11
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 6 December 2012 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (The Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 December 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Jan Anfinn Wahl v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Member States which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area have, with regard to Article 7 of the Agreement, the choice of form and method of implementation when making the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, part of their internal legal order?

               2.

               Should paragraph 1 of Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact, by itself, that the competent authorities in an EEA Member State consider, on the basis of a danger assessment, that an organisation to which the individual in question belongs, is connected with organised crime and the assessment is based on the view that where such organisations have managed to establish themselves, increased and organised crime has followed, is sufficient to consider a citizen of the Union to constitute a threat to public policy and public security in the State in question?

               3.

               For answering the second question, is it of significance whether the Member State has outlawed the organisation of which the individual in question is a member and membership of such organisation is prohibited in the State?

               4.

               Is it sufficient grounds for considering public policy and public security to be threatened in the sense of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC that a EEA Member State, party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, has in its legislation defined as punishable, conduct that consists of conniving with another person on the commission of an act, the commission of which is part of the activities of a criminal organisation, or is such legislation considered as general prevention in the sense of paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Directive? This question is based on the fact that ‘organised crime’ in the sense of domestic law refers to an association of three or more persons, the principle objective of which is, for motives of gain, directly or indirectly, deliberately to commit a criminal act, or when a substantial part of the activities involves the commission of such an act.

               5.

               Should paragraph 2 of Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC be understood meaning that a premise for the application of measures under paragraph 1 of Article 27 of the Directive against a specific individual is that the Member State must adduce a probability that the individual in question intends to indulge in activities comprising a certain action or actions, or refraining from a certain action or actions, in order for the individual’s conduct to be considered as representing a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society?


title: Case C-422/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph — Concept of workers ‘normally employed’ at the establishment concerned — Article 1(1), second subparagraph — Concepts of ‘redundancy’ and ‘terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-422/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph - Concept of workers ‘normally employed’ at the establishment concerned - Article 1(1), second subparagraph - Concepts of ‘redundancy’ and ‘terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
   (2016/C 016/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cristian Pujante Rivera

      Defendants: Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that workers employed under a contract concluded for a fixed term or a specific task must be regarded as forming part of the workers ‘normally’ employed, within the meaning of that provision, at the establishment concerned.

               2.

               In order to establish whether there is a ‘collective redundancy’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59, thus giving rise to the application of the directive, the condition laid down in the second subparagraph of that provision that ‘there [be] at least five redundancies’ must be interpreted as relating not to terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies but only to redundancies sensu stricto.

               3.

               Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an employer — unilaterally and to the detriment of the employee — makes significant changes to essential elements of his employment contract for reasons not related to the individual employee concerned falls within the definition of ‘redundancy’ for the purpose of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-202/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  5 April 2006  — Madaus v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Previous international word mark ECHINACIN — Application for Community word mark ECHINAID — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 — Madaus v OHIM
   (Case T-202/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Previous international word mark ECHINACIN - Application for Community word mark ECHINAID - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 131/73)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Madaus AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, agent)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Optima Healthcare Ltd (Cardiff, United Kingdom)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 March 2004 (Case R 714/2002-2) concerning the opposition proceedings between Madaus AG and Optima Healthcare Ltd
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 February 2001 in Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Competition — Decision to request information — Periodic penalty payments — Right to refuse to provide answers that imply admission of an infringement — Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/21
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs together with                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      those of the applicant in the main proceedings and in the
      application for interim relief;                                                              of 8 February 2001
3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
                                                                           in Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.98.
                                                                           (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Weighting for
                                                                           old-age pension — Protection against the risk of sickness —
                                                                                Invalidity pension — Force of res judicata)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                       of 20 February 2001
                                                                           In Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi, former official at the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in Ajaccio
in Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Com-                         (France), represented by J.-B. Giuseppi, avocat, with an address
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-
(Action for annulment — Competition — Decision to request                  Duvieusart) — application for, first, annulment of the decision
information — Periodic penalty payments — Right to refuse                  of the Commission to reject the applicant’s requests for his
to provide answers that imply admission of an infringement                 pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of
— Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                        the European Communities to be transferred, the weighting
                      Fundamental Freedoms)                                applicable to his old-age pension to be recalculated, for
                                                                           protection against the risk of sickness and for an invalidity
                                                                           pension and, secondly, for compensation for harm caused as a
                          (2001/C 150/38)
                                                                           result of those requests having been refused — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Single Judge: P. Mengozzi); H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                           gave a judgment on 8 February 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           1.    dismisses the application;
In Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, established
at Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by M. Klus-                  2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
mann and K. Moosecker, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and M. Hilf) — application                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.99.
for annulment of Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
1998 relating to a procedure under Article 11(5) of Council
Regulation No 17 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,
Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February
2001, in which it:                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May 1998                                         of 1 February 2001
      relating to a procedure under Article 11(5) of Council
      Regulation No 17, in so far as it relates to the last indent of
      each of questions 1.6, 1.7 and 2.3 and to question 1.8 of the        in Case T-1/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of
      request for information sent to the applicant on 13 August                            the European Communities (1)
      1997;
                                                                           (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
                                                                              Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)
3.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds
      of the costs of the applicant, which shall bear the remaining                                  (2001/C 150/40)
      third.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.98.
                                                                           In Case T-1/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
                                                                           Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2000 in Case T-19/99: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Companyline — Absolute ground for refusal — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 79/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Manufacturing Europe Inc, established in Saint-Nicolas
                                                                         (Belgium), Matchbox Spielwaren and Matchbox Collectibles
                       of 12 January 2000                                GmbH, established in Hösbach (Germany), Tyco Toys France
                                                                         SA, established in Saint-Germain-en-Laye (France), Tyco Toys
in Case T-19/99: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                     España, S.A., established in Sant Just Desvern (Spain), Tyco
v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                 Toys Deutschland GmbH, established in Nuremberg (Germ-
                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                            any), Playtime Toys (UK) Ltd, established in Marlow (United
(Community trade mark — Companyline — Absolute                           Kingdom), represented by Charles-Étienne Gudin, of the
ground for refusal — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)                Hauts-de-Seine Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                            No 40/94)                                    at the Chambers of Faltz et associés, 6, rue Heinrich Heine,
                                                                         supported by Toys Manufacturers of Europe, established in
                         (2000/C 79/52)                                  Brussels, represented by Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, and by Hasbro UK Ltd, established
                                                                         in Uxbridge, Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented initially
In Case T-19/99, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG, a                  by Jacques H.J. Bourgeois and subsequently by Jacques Ghys-
company incorporated under German law, established in                    brecht, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Cologne, Germany, represented by Stephan von Peters-                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae
dorff-Campen, Rechtsanswalt, Mannheim and Karlsruhe, with                & Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc             Communities (Agents: Patrick Hetsch and Marc de Pauw) and
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Office for Harmonisation in               Council of the European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),                    and Guus Houttuin), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agents:
(Agents: Alexander von Mühlendahl and Detlef Schennen) —                 initially, Alberto Navarro González and Gloria Calvo Dı́az, and,
action brought against the decision of the First Board of                subsequently, Navarro González and Rosario Silva Lapuerta) —
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market            application for, first, the annulment of Article 1 of each of
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 November 1998 (Case                      Commission Regulation (EC) No 1012/94 of 29 April 1994
R 72/1998-1), which was notified to the applicant on 19 Nov-             and Regulation (EC) No 1225/94 of 30 May 1994 establishing
ember 1998 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),               the allocations to traditional and non-traditional importers
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and                   respectively from the Community quantitative quotas on
P. Mengozzi, Judges; M.A. Mair, Administrator, for the Regis-            certain products originating in the People’s Republic of China
trar, has given a judgment on 12 January 1999, in which it:              (OJ 1994 L 111, p. 100 and OJ 1994 L 136, p. 40), as well as
                                                                         for a declaration of illegality of Article 1(2) of Council
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing
                                                                         Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 (OJ
                                                                         1994 L 67, p. 89), and of Article 3(2) of Commission Regu-
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                lation (EC) No 747/94 of 30 March 1994 establishing adminis-
                                                                         tration procedures for quantitative quotas on certain products
                                                                         originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 1994 L 87,
                                                                         p. 83), and, secondly, compensation to make good the loss
                                                                         suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested provisions
                                                                         — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
                                                                         of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, C.W. Bellamy, P. Lindh ,
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               J.D. Cooke and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                         order on 13 December 1999, the operative part of which is as
                     of 13 December 1999                                 follows:
in Case T-268/94, Tyco Toys (UK) Ltd and Others against                  1. The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
Commission of the European Communities and Council
                   of the European Union (1)
                                                                         2. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
(Common commercial policy — Regulations (EC) No 519/94                        and severally, the costs incurred by the Commission and the
and No 747/94 — Import quotas for certain toys from                           Council.
People’s Republic of China — Action manifestly unfounded
                              in law)                                    3. The Kingdom of Spain, Toys Manufacturers of Europe and
                                                                              Hasbro UK Ltd., interveners, shall bear their own costs.
                         (2000/C 79/53)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 254 of 10.9.1994.
In Case T-268/94, Tyco Toys (UK) Ltd, Matchbox Toys (UK)
Ltd and Matchbox Collectibles Ltd, established in Rugby
(United Kingdom), Tyco Distribution Europe NV and Tyco


title: Case T-301/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Clearstream v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Financial services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC — Refusal to provide cross-border clearing and settlement services — Discriminatory pricing — Relevant market — Imputability of the infringement)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2009 — Clearstream v Commission
   (Case T-301/04) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Financial services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Refusal to provide cross-border clearing and settlement services - Discriminatory pricing - Relevant market - Imputability of the infringement)
   2009/C 256/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Clearstream Banking AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and Clearstream International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: H. Satzky and B. Maassen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: T. Christoforou, A. Nijenhuis and M. Schneider, and subsequently by A. Nijenhuis and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2004) 1958 final of 2 June 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.096 — Clearstream (Clearing and Settlement)).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Clearstream Banking AG and Clearstream International to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2003 in Case T-385/00 Jean-Paul Seiller v European Investment Bank (European Investment Bank — Staff — Admissibility — Clarity of the application — Confirmatory act — Action brought late — Previous conciliation procedure — Pension rights — Luxembourg law — Settlement — Fraudulent misrepresentation)

text:
C 226/16               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, lawyers, supported
                                                                          by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea), against
                         of 17 June 2003                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          V. Kreuschitz, S. Meany and A.P. Bentley), supported by TNC
in Case T-385/00 Jean-Paul Seiller v European Investment                  Kazchrome, established in Almaty (Kazakhstan) and by Alloy
                              Bank (1)                                    2000 SA, established in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                          J. Flynn, J. Magnin and S. Mills — application for partial annul-
(European Investment Bank — Staff — Admissibility —                       ment of Commission Decision 2001/230/EC of 21 February
Clarity of the application — Confirmatory act — Action                    2001 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning
brought late — Previous conciliation procedure — Pension                  imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil, the People's
rights — Luxembourg law — Settlement — Fraudulent mis-                    Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine and
                          representation)                                 Venezuela (OJ 2001 L 84, p. 36) in so far it concerns imports
                                                                          originating in the People's Republic of China, Russia, Ukraine
                         (2003/C 226/32)                                  and Kazakhstan — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                          Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of N.J. Forwood,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
                                                                          Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio Gonzalez, Principal Administrator,
In Case T-385/00 Jean-Paul Seiller, residing in Luxembourg,               has given a judgment on 8 July 2003, in which it:
represented by D. Chouanier and L. Thielen, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against European
Investment Bank (Agents: E. Uhlmann, C. Gómez de la Cruz                  1.    Dismissed the action;
and P. Mousel) — application for payment of the sum of
LUF 4779652, together with interest, due to him in respect of
his pension rights — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),         2.    Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and, jointly and
composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and                   severally, those incurred by the Commission and by the interve-
J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the                      ners TNC Kazchrome and Alloy 2000, including the costs of the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2003 in which it:                    interlocutory proceedings;
                                                                          3.    Ordered the Kingdom of Spain, intervener, to bear its own costs.
1.   Dismisses the application;
2.   Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and to pay those
     incurred by the EIB.                                                 (1) OJ No C 227 of 11.8.01.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24 February 2001.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 July 2003
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-81/02 Margot Wagemann-Reuter v Court of
                                                                                Auditors of the European Communities (1)
                          of 8 July 2003
                                                                          (Staff case — Leave on personal grounds — Vacant post —
in Case T-132/01: Euroalliages and Others v Commission                                   Upgrading of post — Reinstatement)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/34)
(Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review —
      Community interest — Application for annulment)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                         (2003/C 226/33)
                                                                          In Case T-81/02 Margot Wagemann-Reuter, an official of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                          Luxembourg, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, with an
In Case T-132/01: Euroalliages, established in Brussels                   address for service in Luxembourg, against the Court of
(Belgium), Péchiney électrométallurgie, established in                    Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: originally,
Courbevoie (France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön              J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer, later J.-M. Stenier,
(Sweden), Ferroatlántica, SL, established in Madrid (Spain),              M. Bavendam and I. Riagáin) — application for, first,


title: Case C-428/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 16 August 2011 — Purely Creative Ltd and others v Office of Fair Trading

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 16 August 2011 — Purely Creative Ltd and others v Office of Fair Trading
   (Case C-428/11)
   2011/C 311/42
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Purely Creative Ltd, Strike Lucky Games Ltd, Winners Club Ltd, McIntyre & Dodd Marketing Ltd, Dodd Marketing Ltd, Adrian Williams, Wendy Ruck, Catherine Cummings, Peter Henry

      Defendant: Office of Fair Trading

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the banned practice set out in paragraph 31 of Annex 1 to Directive 2005/29/EC (1) prohibit traders from informing consumers that they have won a prize or equivalent benefit when in fact the consumer is invited to incur any cost, including a de minimis cost, in relation to claiming the prize or equivalent benefit?

               2.

               If the trader offers the consumer a variety of possible methods of claiming the prize or equivalent benefit, is paragraph 31 of Annex 1 breached if taking any action in relation to any of the methods of claiming is subject to the consumer incurring a cost, including a de minimis cost?

               3.

               If paragraph 31 of Annex 1 is not breached where the method of claiming involves the consumer in incurring de minimis costs only, how is the national court to judge whether such costs are de minimis? In particular, must such costs be wholly necessary:

                           (a)

                           in order for the promoter to identify the consumer as the winner of the prize, and/or

                           (b)

                           for the consumer to take possession of the prize, and/or

                           (c)

                           for the consumer to enjoy the experience described as the prize?

               4.

               Does the use of the words ‘false impression’ in paragraph 31 impose some requirement additional to the requirement that the consumer pays money or incurs a cost in relation to claiming the prize, in order for the national court to find that the provisions of paragraph 31 have been contravened?

               5.

               If so, how is the national court to determine whether such a ‘false impression’ has been created? In particular, is the national court required to consider the relative value of the prize as compared with the cost of claiming it in deciding whether a ‘false impression’ has been created? If so, should that ‘relative value’ be assessed by reference to:

                           (a)

                           the unit cost to the promoter in acquiring the prize; or

                           (b)

                           to the unit cost to the promoter in providing the prize to the consumer; or

                           (c)

                           to the value that the consumer may attribute to the prize by reference to an assessment of the ‘market value’ of an equivalent item for purchase?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’)
   OJ L 149, p. 22


title: Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom, Finanzgericht München — Germany) — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-659/13), Puma SE v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (C-34/14) (References for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 — WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(7) — Determination of dumping — Imports from non market economy countries — Claims for market economy treatment — Time limit — Article 9(5) and (6) — Claims for individual treatment — Article 17 — Sampling — Article 3(1), (5) and (6), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) — Cooperation of the Union industry — Article 3(2) and (7) — Determination of injury — Other known factors — Community Customs Code — Article 236(1) and (2) — Repayment of duties not legally owed — Time limit — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Invalidity of a regulation which imposed anti-dumping duties)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom, Finanzgericht München — Germany) — C & J Clark International Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-659/13), Puma SE v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (C-34/14)
   (Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 - WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(7) - Determination of dumping - Imports from non market economy countries - Claims for market economy treatment - Time limit - Article 9(5) and (6) - Claims for individual treatment - Article 17 - Sampling - Article 3(1), (5) and (6), Article 4(1) and Article 5(4) - Cooperation of the Union industry - Article 3(2) and (7) - Determination of injury - Other known factors - Community Customs Code - Article 236(1) and (2) - Repayment of duties not legally owed - Time limit - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Invalidity of a regulation which imposed anti-dumping duties))
   (2016/C 106/02)
   Languages of the case: English and German

      Referring courts

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant/applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (C-659/13), Puma SE (C-34/14)

      Respondent/defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-659/13), Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (C-34/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam is invalid in so far as it infringes Article 2(7)(b) and Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004.
               Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 1472/2006 in the light of Article 296 TFEU and Article 2(7)(c), Article 3(1), (2) and (5) to (7), Article 4(1), Article 5(4), Article 9(6) and Article 17 of Regulation No 384/96 as amended by Regulation No 461/2004, considered in isolation in the case of some of those articles or provisions and jointly in the case of others.

               2.

               Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is invalid to the same extent as Regulation No 1472/2006.

               3.

               In a situation such as that at issue in the main actions, the courts of the Member States may not rely on judgments in which the judicature of the European Union annulled a regulation that had imposed anti-dumping duties, in so far as it related to certain exporting producers covered by it, in order to hold that the duties imposed on the products of other exporting producers covered by that regulation, and in the same situation as the exporting producers in respect of which the regulation was annulled, are not legally owed within the meaning of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. As such a regulation has not been withdrawn by the institution of the European Union which adopted it, annulled by the judicature of the European Union or declared invalid by the Court of Justice of the European Union in so far as it imposes duties on the products of those other exporting producers, those duties remain legally owed within the meaning of that provision.

               4.

               Article 236(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties is declared invalid in whole or in part by the judicature of the European Union does not constitute unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

      OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-555/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi): Magali Warbecq v Ryanair Ltd (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Court or tribunal having the power under Article 68 EC to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling — Court lacking jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/19

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 10 June 2004
   in Case C-555/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi): Magali Warbecq v Ryanair Ltd (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Court or tribunal having the power under Article 68 EC to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling - Court lacking jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling)
   (2004/C 228/36)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-555/03: reference to the Court under Article 68 EC by the Tribunal du travail de Chareleroi (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Magali Warbecq and Ryanair Ltd — on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi (Belgium) by judgment of 15 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.