title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2005 in Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Classification in a higher grade)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 July 2005
   in Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Community officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Classification in a higher grade)
   (2005/C 229/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-459/04, Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Joris and M. Velardo, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 18 March 2004, by which it definitively classified the applicant in Grade A5, step 3 — the Court of First Instance, composed of S. Papasavvas, Judge; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders each party to pay its own costs.

      (1)  JO C 45 of 19.2.2005


title: Case C-485/06: Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/49

         Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-485/06)
   (2006/C 326/101)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (1), or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the Directive expired on 5 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17.


title: Case C-239/08: Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/16

         Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-239/08)
   (2008/C 183/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2006/100/EC expired on the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, namely on 1 January 2007. At the time the action was brought, all the measures necessary to transpose the directive had not yet been taken or communicated to the Commission by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 363. p. 141.


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/21

         Removal from the register of Case C-58/03 (1)

   (2005/C 106/42)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 24 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-58/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State): Y.G. Encheva v Staatssecretaris van Justitie.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 05.04.2003.


title: Case C-302/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 19 June 2015 — Correos y Telégrafos SA v Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca
   (Case C-302/15)
   (2015/C 294/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo Tarragona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Correos y Telégrafos SA

      Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Vila Seca

      Question referred

   Do Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 7 of Directive 2008/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC (2) with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services preclude national legislation which, as a means of financing the universal postal service, provides for tax exemptions in relation to the activities of that service?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14.


title: Case F-14/13: Action brought on 11 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/40

         Action brought on 11 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-14/13)
   2013/C 108/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Sagias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/117/11 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the absence of the professional experience required.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/117/11 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests, a decision which was communicated to him by letter dated 18 April 2012 and subsequently confirmed, the confirmation having been communicated to him by letter dated 24 May 2012;

               —

               annul the decision of 9 November 2012, rejecting the complaint brought against the decision of the selection board mentioned above;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-527/08: Order of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Commission v TMT Pragma

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

         Order of the General Court of 26 March 2010 — Commission v TMT Pragma
   (Case T-527/08) (1)

   2010/C 148/85

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-599/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL — Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)
   (Case T-599/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark EUROCOOL - Earlier national figurative mark EUROCOOL LOGISTICS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to a fair hearing)
   2013/C 304/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner and C. Ofner, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially R. Manea, subsequently K. Klüpfel, and then K. Klüpfel and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Pfefferkorn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurocool Logistik GmbH and Mr Peter Lenger

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2010 (Case R 451/2010-1) in so far as it concerns the services, referred to in the trade mark application, of ‘development of software for the storage, commissioning and transport of chilled and frozen goods’ in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘services of a freight forwarding company’, in Class 39 of that agreement, covered by the earlier mark;

               2.

               Rejects the opposition in so far as it concerns the services referred to in point 1;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Eurocool Logistik GmbH, OHIM and Mr Peter Lenger each to bear their own respective costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Court;

               5.

               Orders OHIM to pay half of the costs incurred by Eurocool Logistik in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case C-37/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 31 January 2008 — RCI Europe v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom) made on 31 January 2008 — RCI Europe v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-37/08)
   (2008/C 92/30)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RCI Europe

      Defendant: Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               In the context of the services supplied by the Appellant for:

                           —

                           the enrolment fee;

                           —

                           the subscription fee; and

                           —

                           the exchange fee

                     paid by members of the Appellant's Weeks Scheme, what are the factors to be considered when determining whether the services are ‘connected with’ immovable property within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) (now Article 45 of the Recast VAT Directive (2))?

               2.

               If any or all of the services supplied by the Appellant are ‘connected with’ immovable property within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (now Article 45 of the Recast VAT Directive), is the immovable property with which each or all of the services are connected the immovable property deposited into the pool, or the immovable property requested in exchange for the deposited immovable property, or both of these properties?

               3.

               If any of the services are ‘connected with’ both immovable properties, how are the services to be classified under the Sixth VAT Directive (now the Recast VAT Directive)?

               4.

               In light of the divergent solutions found by different Member States how does the Sixth VAT Directive (now the Recast VAT Directive) characterise the ‘exchange fee’ income of a taxable person received for the following supplies:

                           —

                           facilitating the exchange of holiday usage rights held by one member of a scheme run by the taxable person for the holiday usage rights held by another member of that scheme; and/or

                           —

                           supplying usage rights in accommodation purchased by the taxable person from taxable third parties to supplement the pool of accommodation available to members of that scheme.

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-105/12: Action brought on 2 March 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/27

         Action brought on 2 March 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-105/12)
   2012/C 133/54
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Samoni and N. Dafniou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               grant the application for annulment;

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment (under Article 263 TFEU) of Commission Decision 1472708 of 3 January 2012‘relating to continued payment by the Hellenic Republic of the daily penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-65/05’, in so far as making of the penalty payment is sought from 22 August 2011 onwards. Under the aforementioned contested decision, given that, according to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic appears not to have undertaken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05 and subsequently its second judgment in Case C-109/08, the Hellenic Republic is called upon to pay the sum of EUR 4 825 008 as a penalty payment for the period from 1 July 2011 until 30 November 2011.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

               1.

               First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
               The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05.

               2.

               Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power
               The Hellenic Republic exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments.

               3.

               Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission
               In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 30 November 2011.
               The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated.

               4.

               Fourth, incorrect use of legal basis
               The Hellenic Republic submits that, if the Commission considered that Law 4002/2001 was not being applied correctly by the Hellenic Republic, it had to use Article 258 TFEU and initiate a fresh infringement procedure, and not require continued making of the penalty payment.


title: Case C-294/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — You Q BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Apple Corps Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEATLE’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/45

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — You Q BV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Apple Corps Ltd
   (Case C-294/12 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEATLE’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2013/C 225/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: You Q BV (represented by: G.S.C.M. van Roeyen, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and I. Harrington, acting as Agents), Apple Corps Ltd (represented by A. Terry, Solicitor, and F. Clark, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 in Case T-369/10 You-Q v OHIM — Apple Corps (Beatle), by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark including the word element ‘BEATLE’ for goods in Class 12 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 31 May 2010 in Case R 1276/2009-2, which annulled the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative marks including the word elements ‘BEATLES’ and ‘THE BEATLES’ in respect of goods in Classes 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 41

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               You-Q BV shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case C-470/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal Supremo — Sala Tercera Contencioso-Administrativo (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2014  — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and Others v Administración del Estado and Others

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal Supremo — Sala Tercera Contencioso-Administrativo (Spain) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) and Others v Administración del Estado and Others
   (Case C-470/14)
   (2015/C 007/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala Tercera Contencioso-Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA) and Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP)

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (AMETIC), Entidad de Gestión, Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes y Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO) and Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE)

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is a scheme for fair compensation for private copying compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 (1) where the scheme, while taking as a basis an estimate of the harm actually caused, is financed from the General State Budget, it thus not being possible to ensure that the cost of that compensation is borne by the users of private copies?

               2)

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the scheme compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 where the total amount allocated by the General State Budget to fair compensation for private copying, although it is calculated on the basis of the harm actually caused, has to be set within the budgetary limits established for each financial year?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case C-246/00: Action brought on 20 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
9.9.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/5
Contrary to the view taken by the Federal Republic of Germany,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the content in pollutants of the individual components of
the waste burned can have no impact on the classification of
the burning as recovery or disposal. Article 4 of Directi-
ve 75/442/EEC does impose an obligation on Member States
to ensure that waste is disposed of or recovered in such a way         (1) declare that, by adopting Articles 107(1), 108(1)(h), 109
as not to damage the environment or endanger human health,                   and 111(1)(a) of the Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic
but the provision contains nothing on the distinction between                Law) 1994 and Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen
disposal and recovery. Moreover, reference should be made in                 (Rules on Driving Licences), the Kingdom of the Nether-
this context to the system that underlies Regulation (EEC)                   lands has failed to comply with its obligations under
No 259/93; both the competent authorities in the dispatching                 Articles 1(2) and 6(1)(c) and point 4 in Annex III to
State and the authorities in the receiving State may raise                   Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
objections to waste shipments on grounds that are set out in                 licences (OJ L 237 of 24 August 1991, p. 1) and thus
detail. According to the regulation, the pollutant content of                with its obligations under the EC Treaty;
the waste or compliance with emission rules by the plant
which burns it are not parameters for the raising of objections.
The obligations under Article 4 of the regulation apply to
every Member State within its territory irrespective of the            (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
shipment procedure.
The Commission is further of the opinion that Member States
may not set up criteria which lead to the directive’s provisions
on the demarcation of types of recovery not being complied
with. It is true that, on the current wording of Directi-
ve 75/442/EEC, it is difficult to distinguish between recovery         Pleas in law and main arguments
and disposal in individual cases. The Commission’s staff had
therefore provided for a criterion of heating value in a working
document. At the present time, however, the Commission’s
staff are preparing other solutions, which are subsequently to
be incorporated into Directive 75/442/EEC through technical            —     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,
                                                                             resulting from the introduction of a compulsory, system-
adaptation of the annexes on the basis of Article 17.
                                                                             atic scheme of registration after one year of establishment
                                                                             in the Netherlands: it follows from the objective and
                                                                             scope of Article 1(1) of the directive, and also from the
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.                                                 usual meaning of the wording of Article 1(2) thereof, that
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                              driving licences which have been issued by another
                                                                             Member State without any formal requirements must be
                                                                             recognised by the authorities of the host Member State.
                                                                             The holder of a driving licence issued in accordance with
                                                                             the European model is no longer obliged to exchange
                                                                             that licence upon becoming established in another Mem-
                                                                             ber State. This means that the holder is spared from
                                                                             having to incur administrative expenses upon becoming
                                                                             established and also, of course, upon subsequently
                                                                             returning to the Member State in which the licence was
                                                                             issued or on subsequently moving to a third Member
Action brought on 20 June 2000 by the Commission of                          State. In order effectively to avoid such impediments, the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                          mutual recognition provided for in Article 1(2) must take
                           Netherlands                                       place ‘without any formality’. Under the Netherlands
                                                                             Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic Law) 1994, mutual
                                                                             recognition without any formality occurs only if the
                         (Case C-246/00)                                     holder establishes himself in the Netherlands for less than
                                                                             one year. Driving licences which are not registered within
                                                                             one year after establishment cease to be valid for use in
                         (2000/C 259/08)                                     the Netherlands. Driving a vehicle in the Netherlands
                                                                             with such a driving licence is equivalent to driving
                                                                             without a licence. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                         in fact replaced the obligation to exchange a licence, as
brought before the Court of Justice on 20 June 2000 by the                   laid down by Directive 80/1263 but criticised in the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                       ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 and
M. Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and H.M.H. Speyart, of its Legal               in paragraph 26 of the Skanavi judgment (1), with a
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                    registration obligation. This conflicts with the system of
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal               mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           States, as laid down in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.9.2000
      Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 cannot be invoked in               Action brought on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of
      order to justify a compulsory, systematic scheme for the            the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
      registration of licences issued by other Member States.                                         Netherlands
      The view taken by the Netherlands authorities is based
      on a misapprehension of the relationship between                                              (Case C-254/00)
      Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive and between
      the directive and Article 43 EC. In addition, the measures                                    (2000/C 259/09)
      applied by the Netherlands authorities are dispro-
      portionate.                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
—     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,                   Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the
      resulting from the reduction in the period of validity of a         Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address
      driving licence issued by another Member State following            for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
      the date of issue in that Member State: the Netherlands             Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
      authorities apply the national rules concerning the val-
      idity of licences as from the time of becoming established          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      in the Netherlands. In that respect too, the Netherlands
      authorities have misapprehended the relationship                    1.    Declare that, by failing to notify all of the laws, regulations
      between Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) of the directive,                   and administrative provisions necessary for compliance
      in that, for a great many licence-holders, the mutual                     with Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and
      recognition provided for by Article 1(2) is ineffective. The              of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the use of
      Netherlands authorities have misunderstood the notion                     standards for the transmission of television signals (1) or
      of ‘mutual recognition’: this does not mean that holders                  by failing to adopt the measures necessary for that
      of driving licences issued by the Netherlands and by other                purpose, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
      Member States must be treated in the same way, but that                   fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      the legal effects attaching to driving licences issued by
                                                                          2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      another Member State are the same as in the issuing
      Member State. The aim is not to allow discrimination
      against holders of Netherlands driving licences by com-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      parison with holders of other driving licences, but to
      prevent a situation in which the latter group are faced             In view of the mandatory nature of the third paragraph of
      with obstacles to the exercise of freedom of establishment          Article 249 EC, Member States are required to adopt the
      in the Netherlands.                                                 measures necessary for compliance with directives which are
                                                                          addressed to them, and to do so before the expiry of the period
                                                                          specified therein. That period expired on 23 August 1996
—     Infringement of Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 91/439: the            without the Netherlands having adopted the requisite pro-
      Netherlands statute prescribes a minimum age of 18 for              visions.
      drivers of category D vehicles, whereas, in accordance
      with Article 6(1)(c) of the directive, that age should be           (1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 51.
      21.
—     Infringement of point 4 in Annex III to Directive 91/439:
      inasmuch as Article 100 of the (Netherlands) Reglement
      Rijbewijzen (Rules on Driving Licences) does not provide            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      for a periodic medical examination for Group 2 drivers              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
      (lorry drivers and bus drivers), it is contrary to point 4 in       (Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 June 2000, in
      Annex III to the directive.                                         the case of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                                against the Zoological Society of London
                                                                                (Case C-267/00)
(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 February 1996 in Case                                    (2000/C 259/10)
    C-193/94 Skanavi [1996] ECR I-929.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
                                                                          Office) of 21 June 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          the Commissioners of Customs and Excise against the Zoologi-
                                                                          cal Society of London, on the following questions:


title: Case C-550/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeren (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Reverse charge mechanism — Article 198(2) — Gold material or semi-manufactured products — Meaning — Article 199(1)(d) and Annex VI — Used materials, waste and scrap — Ingots resulting from the melting down of various objects and scrap used to enable the extraction of gold and with a purity in gold of 325 thousandths or greater)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeren
   (Case C-550/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Reverse charge mechanism - Article 198(2) - Gold material or semi-manufactured products - Meaning - Article 199(1)(d) and Annex VI - Used materials, waste and scrap - Ingots resulting from the melting down of various objects and scrap used to enable the extraction of gold and with a purity in gold of 325 thousandths or greater))
   (2016/C 260/04)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Envirotec Denmark ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeren

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 198(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to the supply of ingots, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of a random, rough alloy obtained from the fusion of scrap and various metal objects containing gold, and other metals, materials and substances, and which, depending on the ingot, have a gold content of approximately 500 or 600 thousandths.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by judgment/order of that court of 25 October 1995 in the case of Peter Schepens v. Belgian State (Case C-340/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 333/ 11
30 October 1995 ( Case C-342/95 ) respectively, for a                 6 . Is the second paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe                 to be interpreted as precluding, in cases such as this, the
Piccolo ( Case C-331 /95 ), Mario Corbo and Others ( Case                   grant by the Finance Court of leave to appeal pursuant
C-332/95 ) and Miranda Viola ( Case C-342/95 ). The                         to the second sentence of paragraph 128 ( 3 ) of the
questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma —                   Finanzgerichtsordnung ( Code of Procedure before
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a                  the Finance Court) read in conjunction with
preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                         paragraph 115 ( 2 ) ( 1 ) thereof?
C-187/95 C ).
                                                                      ( 1 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 176 .
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 14 .                            ( 2 ) OJ No L 41 , 18 . 2 . 1992 , p . 9 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
the case of Kriiger GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt                     by order of that court of 12 September 1995 in the case of
                        Hamburg-Jonas                                         Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich
                       ( Case C-334/95 )                                                           Case C-338/95 )
                          ( 95/C 333/21 )                                                          ( 95/C 333/22 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                    European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber
Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) of 21 September                     of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                    12 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
23 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Registry on 26 October 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
Kriiger GmbH & Co . KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                  case of Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich on the
( Principal Customs Office , Hamburg-Jonas ) on the                   following question:
following questions:
                                                                      Is the term 'nightdresses' within the meaning of tariff
1 . Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( ] ), read in                  heading 60.04 of the 1985 Common Customs Tariff,
     conjunction with the Annex thereto, as amended by                specifically tarif subheading 60.04 B IV b 2 bb, to be
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 374/92 (2 ), infringe the second           interpreted as covering exclusively 'other' under garments
     subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, and is it     which, in view of their characteristics, are clearly intended
     consequently invalid, inasmuch as it does not provide            only to be worn as night wear, or does it also cover products
     for the grant of an export refund for milk and/or milk           which, on the basis of their appearance, are intended mainly,
     products contained in edible preparations falling                but not exclusively, to be worn in bed ?
     within Combined Nomenclature code No 2101 10
     and produced with a basis of extracts, essences or
     concentrates of coffee ?
2 . Does a breach of the prohibition of discrimination                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep
     preclude the recovery of an export refund granted in             te Antwerpen by judgment/order of that court of
     respect of milk and/or milk products contained in edible         25 October 1995 in the case of Peter Schepens v. Belgian
     preparations falling within Combined Nomenclature                                                   State
     code No 2101 10 and produced with a basis of extracts                                       ( Case C-340/95 )
     of coffee ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/23 )
3 . Is Article 244 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 ( 3 ) ( the
     Customs Code ) applicable to the suspension of                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     implementation of decisions ordering the recovery of an          European Communities by a judgment of the Hof van
     export refund which has been granted ?                           Beroep ( Court of Appeal ) in Antwerp of 25 October 1995 ,
                                                                      which as received at the Court Registry on 30 October 1995 ,
4 . If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative : in cases      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peter Schepens v.
     in which there exists doubt as to the validity of the            Belgian State on the following questions :
     Community legislation on which the decision is based, is
     the suspension of implementation to be determined in              1 . Do Articles 18 ( 4 ) and 27 of the Sixth Council Directive
     accordance with Article 244 of the Customs Code or in                  of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
     accordance with which other criteria ?                                 the Member States relating to turnover taxes (VAT
                                                                            Directive 77/388/EEC ) (') have direct effect in the
5 . If the answer to question 3 is in the negative: in cases in             national legal systems of the Member States and thus in
     which there exists doubt as to the validity of the                     Belgian law ?
     Community legislation on which the decision is based,
     what are the criteria according to which the suspension          2 . If so, does Article 18 (4 ) of the Directive preclude a
     of implementation falls to be determined ?                             Member State from refusing to refund to a taxable
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/ 12            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 12 . 95
     person a VAT credit in relation to a specific period or                   of Member States but, instead, two successive
     periods during which that credit arose or to carry it over                registration certificates, and by demanding payment
     to a subsequent tax period, and instead withholding it                    for those certificates,
     by means of the Belgian withholding procedure, which
     has the effect of a preventive attachment within the                  — by issuing to employed persons and to seasonal
     meaning of Article 1445 of the Belgian Judicial Code, as                  workers whose anticipated period of work does not
     long as no definitive entitlement has arisen in that regard               exceed three months a document relating to their
     and only up to the amount of the demand relating to that                  residence, and by demanding payment for that
     tax period or earlier periods, where the demand is                        document,
     disputed by the taxable person ?
                                                                      2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
3 . Is Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Directive applicable, given that,
     according to the Belgian State , such withholding is a           Pleas in law and main arguments:
     debt-recovery procedure ?
                                                                      — ( As regards the situation of persons seeking work )
    — If so, is Article 27 of the Directive applicable if such
         withholding were to form part of the conditions                  As Community law now stands, and in accordance with
         (modalites)?                                                     the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 February 1991
                                                                          in Case C-292/89 , nationals of Member States have the
    — If not, is Article 27 applicable, on the assumption                 right to stay in the territory of other Member States in
         that such withholding is a debt-recovery                         order to seek employment there; a Member State may
         procedure ?                                                      limit that right of residence by making it subject to a
                                                                          ' reasonable time-limit', the expiry of which does not
4 . If Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Directive is applicable to the             automatically bring that right to an end, however,
    Belgian withholding procedure, does that procedure                    provided that the person concerned is continuing to seek
    infringe the principle of proportionality as defined by               employment and has genuine chances of being engaged.
    the Court of Justice ?                                                The Belgian rules in force ( 2 ) require such persons
                                                                          seeking employment to leave the territory after a period
(') OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                           of three months and, since no provision is made for the
                                                                          production by the person concerned to produce evidence
                                                                          that he is continuing to seek employment and has
                                                                          genuine chances of being engaged, those rules are
                                                                          contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                     — ( As regards the system of registration certificates )
Action brought on 30 October 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        Although Article 4 of Directive 68/360/EEC provides
                              Belgium                                     that the Member State must issue a residence permit, the
                         Case C-344/95 )                                  residence of workers in Belgium is covered initially , over
                                                                          a period of six months, by two registration certificates .
                          ( 95/C 333/24 )
                                                                          The issue of a provisional residence document
                                                                          constitutes an additional difficulty over and above the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                      difficulties facing a migrant worker when he instals
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                himself in another Member State . The Belgian rules in
30 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                         question thus constitute a genuine obstacle to the free
Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, acting as                  movement of workers, and are therefore contrary, in
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   principle, to Article 48 of the EC Treaty.
office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre 254,
                                                                          The Commission does not contend that the residence
Kirchberg.
                                                                          permit has to be issued immediately, that is to say, on
                                                                          the same day as the submission of an application
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              accompanied by the supporting documentation, but
                                                                          maintains that the practical effect of Article 4 requires
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil              that such an application be dealt with in any event within
    its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                 a short period of time, and that a period of three months
     Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on
    the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
                                                                          ( and a fortiori six months ) for dealing with a simple
                                                                          administrative formality is excessive .
    within the Community for workers of Member States
    and their families ( ! )                                              Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive 68/360/EEC provides that
                                                                          residence permits are to be issued and renewed free of
    — by requiring nationals of other Member States who                   charge or on payment of an amount not exceeding the
         seek employment in Belgium to leave the territory                dues and taxes charged for the issue of identity cards to
         after a period of three months,                                  nationals . The fact that a payment may be demanded by
                                                                          Belgian communes on the issue of the registration
    — by issuing to workers employed for a period of at                   certificate can hardly be said to afford equality of
         least one year, during the first six months of their             treatment between Belgians and nationals of other
         residence, not a residence permit for nationals                  Member States .


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 January 2003 in Case C-334/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (EC and ECSC Treaties — State aid — Composition of the Commission — Notification to the Commission of aid and planned aid — Concept and substance of notification — Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Fifth Steel Aid Code — Powers of the Commission ratione temporis — Article 87(2)(c) EC — Privatisation procedure — Private investor test — Invitation to bid — Transparency)

text:
8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 55/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                        of 28 January 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
in Case C-334/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(EC and ECSC Treaties — State aid — Composition of the
Commission — Notification to the Commission of aid and
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
planned aid — Concept and substance of notification —
Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Fifth Steel Aid Code — Powers
of the Commission ratione temporis — Article 87(2)(c) EC                                             of 21 January 2003
— Privatisation procedure — Private investor test —
               Invitation to bid — Transparency)                             in Case C-512/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                          (2003/C 55/01)                                     (Approximation of laws — Directive 97/69/EC — Danger-
                                                                             ous substances — More stringent national provisions —
                                                                             Application ratione temporis of Article 95 EC — Duty of
                   (Language of the case: German)                            cooperation — Conditions for the approval of new national
                                                                                provisions)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2003/C 55/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-334/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
C.-D. Quassowski, assisted by J. Sedemund) v Commission of                                      in the European Court Reports)
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and
K.-D. Borchardt): Application for annulment of Articles 4 to 7
of Commission Decision 1999/720/EC, ECSC of 8 July 1999                      In Case C-512/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
on State aid granted by Germany to Gröditzer Stahlwerke                      W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön) v Commission of the
GmbH and its subsidiary Walzwerk Burg GmbH (OJ 1999                          European Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen) supported by
L 292, p. 27), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,              Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin):
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and                   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                      836/EC of 26 October 1999 on the national provisions
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                       concerning mineral wool notified by Germany derogating
S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                 from Directive 97/69/EC adapting to technical progress for
Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                     the 23rd time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approxi-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January                mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
2003, in which it:                                                           relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of


title: Removal from the register of Case C-211/96

text:
No C 94/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               22 . 3 . 97
         overland transport operation, merely discovered              removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 : Commission
         that the goods delivered to him were damaged,                of the European Communities y. Hellenic Republic.
         constitute — and if so under what conditions —
         the place of occurrence of the damage which,                 (<) OJ No C 269, 14. 9 . 1996 .
         according to the judgment of the Court of Justice
         of 30 November 1976 in Case 21 /76 Bier v. Mines
         de Potasse d'Alsace [ 1976] ECR, p. 1735 , may be
         the place ' of the event giving rise to the damage'
         within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
         Convention ?                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-226/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/31 )
2 . May a defendant domiciled in the territory of a
     Contracting State be brought, in another Contracting             By order of 4 December 1996 the President of the Court
     State, before the court hearing an action against a co          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     defendant not domiciled in the territory of any                  removal from the register of Case C-226/96 : Commission
     Contracting State, on the ground that the dispute is             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
     indivisible, rather than merely displaying a
    connection ?                                                      O OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-94/96 (')                        Removal from the register of Case C-227/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 94/28 )                                                        ( 97/C 94/32 )
                                                                      By order of 3 December 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-227/96 : Commission
removal from the register of Case C-94/96 : Commission of             of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                      n OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-241/96 ( ')
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C- 109/96,                                              ( 97/C 94/33 )
            C-110/96, C-lll/96 and C-112/96 (')
                              97/C 94/29 )                            By order of 6 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
By order of 10 December 1996 the President of the Court               removal from the register of Case C-241 /96 : Commission
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-109, C-110,
C-lll and C-112/96 : Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .
Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
H OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-244/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/34 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-2 11/96 (')                By order of 13 December 1996 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                            ( 97/C 94/30)                             removal from the register of Case C-244/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
By order of 5 December 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case T-484/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014  — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark THE YOUTH EXPERTS — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Examination as to the merits conditional on the admissibility of the action — First sentence of Article 59 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2014 — Lumene v OHIM (THE YOUTH EXPERTS)
   (Case T-484/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark THE YOUTH EXPERTS - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Examination as to the merits conditional on the admissibility of the action - First sentence of Article 59 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 007/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lumene Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2013 (Case R 187/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign THE YOUTH EXPERTS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2013 (Case R 187/2013-2) as regards ‘[b]leaching preparations and other substances for laundry use [and] cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations’ in Class 3 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and ‘[s]anitary preparations for medical purposes[,] plasters, materials for dressings[,] material for stopping teeth [and] dental wax[,] disinfectants[,] preparations for destroying vermin[,] fungicides [and] herbicides’ in Class 5 of that agreement;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-251/06: Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Meyer-Falk v Commission

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/14

         Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Meyer-Falk v Commission
   (Case T-251/06)
   (2008/C 236/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Meyer-Falk (Bruchsal, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 6 November 2006, by which it refused the applicant access to two documents relating to the fight against organised crime and to judicial reform in Bulgaria. Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant made an application for the grant of legal aid, which was granted by the Court of First Instance by decision of 21 January 2008.
   In support of its action the applicant claims, first, in essence, that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration, since the applicant's application for access to the documents was refused despite the fact that the documents were made accessible to the public with the exception of the applicant.
   The applicant claims, second, that the application of Article 4(1)(a) and (b) and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

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


title: Case T-547/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT — Prior Community word mark CALCILAN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Refusal of registration)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)
   (Case T-547/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT - Prior Community word mark CALCILAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Refusal of registration)
   2012/C 138/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: D. Botis; subsequently by: R. Manea; and finally by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-219/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework Agreement on part-time work — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Right to paid annual leave — Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time — Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Birmingham Employment Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd
   (Case C-219/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Right to paid annual leave - Calculation of entitlement to leave in the event of an increase in working time - Interpretation of the pro rata temporis principle))
   (2016/C 016/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Birmingham Employment Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kathleen Greenfield

      Defendant: The Care Bureau Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/CE of 7 April 1998, and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an increase in the number of hours of work performed by a worker, the Member States are not obliged to provide that the entitlement to paid annual leave already accrued, and possibly taken, must be recalculated retroactively according to that worker’s new work pattern. A new calculation must, however, be performed for the period during which working time increased.

               2.

               Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to be performed according to the same principles, whether what is being determined is the allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken where the employment relationship is terminated, or the outstanding annual leave entitlement where the employment relationship continues.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-114/16: Order of the President of the Court of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Damien Zöldség, Gyümölcs Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-114/16) (1)

   (2016/C 326/37)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


4.5.2002              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 109/39
      Removal from the register of Case C-105/98 P (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-295/99 (1)
                       (2002/C 109/66)                                                   (2002/C 109/69)
By order of 27 November 2001 the President of the Court of        By order of 12 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-105/98 P: Günther Bühring v           from the register of Case C-295/99: Kingdom of Belgium v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the               Commission of the European Communities.
European Communities
                                                                  (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-461/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-24/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/70)
                       (2002/C 109/67)
                                                                  By order of 1 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 18 February 2002 the President of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-461/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-24/99: Commission of the              European Communities v Ireland.
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-77/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-140/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/71)
                       (2002/C 109/68)
                                                                  By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of         from the register of Case C-77/00 (Referral for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany)): Urlaubs
from the register of Case C-140/99: Commission of the             — und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v Viscondense
European Communities v French Republic.                           Construçoes, Lda.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case C-83/04: Action brought on 20 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 85/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        3.4.2004
Action brought on 20 February 2004 by the Commission                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     the Court should:
                            Republic
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-83/04)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                             the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                         (2004/C 85/37)                                      winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
                                                                             event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                             Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Article 31 of that directive;
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
20 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Gonçalo Braga
de Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The period for transposition of the directive expired on
1.    declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regu-          20 April 2003.
      lations and administrative provisions needed in order to
      comply with Directive 2001/29/EC (1)of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the              (1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.
      harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
      rights in the information society, or, in any event, by
      having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 13 of that directive;
2.    order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-86/04)
The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 85/39)
(1) OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre,
                                                                       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                         (Case C-85/04)
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (2004/C 85/38)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                             the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                                                                             winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February                  Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case T-303/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Barqawi v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — Barqawi v Council
   (Case T-303/15) (1)

   ((Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 213/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ahmad Barqawi (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: G. Étienne and N. Rouam, subsequently by: G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and finally by: S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), insofar as the applicant’s name has been entered in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria inasmuch as they relate to Mr Ahmad Barqawi;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Barqawi.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case C-222/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) and Armando Álvarez, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/22

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) and Armando Álvarez, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union
   (Case C-222/17 P)
   (2017/C 213/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA) and Armando Álvarez, S.A. (represented by: S. Moya Izquierdo and M. Troncoso Ferrer, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of General Court of the European Union of 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15 and order the European Union to pay the appellants EUR 3 495 038,66, together with the corresponding compensatory and late-payment interest, by way of compensation due as a result of the General Court’s infringement of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Failure to state adequate reasons and error of law in calculating the appropriate length of time between the end of the written part of the procedure and the opening of the oral part of the procedure.

               2.

               Error of law as regards the assessment of the interest on the fine as damage.

               3.

               Error of law in the application of the principle that a court is prohibited from adjudicating ultra petita.

               4.

               Infringement of the appellants’ rights of defence in relation to the evaluation of the material damage suffered.

               5.

               Error of law in that the judgment under appeal contains a manifest contradiction in relation to the period in respect of which compensation had to be paid.


title: Case T-137/10: Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Coordination bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) v European Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/38

         Action brought on 17 March 2010 — Coordination bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) v European Commission
   (Case T-137/10)
   2010/C 148/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Coordination bruxelloise d’Institutions sociales et de santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, avocat, and D. Slater, solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant of 28 October 2009 declaring compatible with the common market on the basis of Article 86(2) EC unlawful State aid granted by Belgium to certain public hospitals in the Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Region of Brussels — Capital) and dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By way of the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8120 final COR of 28 December 2009, declaring compatible with the common market all the funding granted by the Belgian authorities to the public hospitals belonging to the IRIS network in the Région Bruxelles-Capitale, by way of compensation for hospital and non-hospital services they provide in the form of services of general economic interest (SGEI) (State aid NN 54/2009 (ex-CP 244/2005)).
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission’s decision contains manifest errors of assessment or, at least, provides very inadequate reasons.
   The applicant submits in particular that the Commission’s claim that there is no need to examine the efficiency of the aid beneficiary, for example by comparing it to a ‘typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided for’, when examining the State aid in the light of Article 86(2) EC, allows Member State to cover all the costs of an undertaking charged with public service duties, irrespective of how exorbitant or disproportionate those may be, and thus must be rejected.
   The applicant submits that, in order to avoid any distortion of competition on the market, compensation for carrying out public service duties should be limited to what is strictly necessary compared to the costs that an efficient operator would have incurred, which is not the case in the present case.


title: Case C-221/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Republic of Malta) — AJD Tuna Ltd v Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd, Avukat Generali (Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Validity — Common fisheries policy — Conservation of resources — Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Republic of Malta) — AJD Tuna Ltd v Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd, Avukat Generali
   (Case C-221/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Validity - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - Recovery of bluefin tuna stocks in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean)
   2011/C 139/03
   Language of the case: Maltese

      Referring court

   Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AJD Tuna Ltd

      Defendants: Direttur tal-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd, Avukat Generali

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ L 155, p. 9)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea or of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy as regards the adversarial principle and the principle of effective judicial protection;

               2.

               Examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 530/2008 as regards the requirement to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality;

               3.

               Regulation No 530/2008 is invalid in so far as, having been adopted on the basis of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2371/2002, the prohibitions it contains took effect from 23 June 2008 for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain and Community operators who had concluded contracts with them, whereas those prohibitions took effect from 16 June 2008 for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Malta, Greece, France, Italy and Cyprus and Community operators who had concluded contracts with them, without such difference in treatment being objectively justified.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-421/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/18/EC — Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-421/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-421/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on the 3 October 2003 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, acting for the President, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case T -383/05 R: Order of the Court of First Instance of  11 January 2006  — GHK Consulting v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2006 — GHK Consulting v Commission
   (Case T -383/05 R)
   (2006/C 48/83)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Justice has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-710/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel — OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/16

         Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel — OHIM — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
   (Case T-710/13)
   2014/C 61/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 1074/2012-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Tafel’ for services in Classes 39 and 45 — Community trade mark No 8 985 541.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and the applicant’s bad faith under Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and mark declared invalid.

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


title: Case T-439/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  3 May 2006  — Eurohypo v OHIM (EUROHYPO) (Community trade mark — Word mark EUROHYPO — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 — Admissibility of facts submitted for the first time before the Court of First Instance)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/16

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2006 — Eurohypo v OHIM (EUROHYPO)
   (Case T-439/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark EUROHYPO - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 - Admissibility of facts submitted for the first time before the Court of First Instance)
   (2006/C 154/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurohypo AG (Eschborn, Germany) (represented by: M.Kloth and C.Rohnke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and J. Weberndörfer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2004 (Case R 829/2002-4) concerning the registration of the word mark EUROHYPO as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005