title: Case C-533/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2007 — Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 November 2007 — Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v Gisela Weller-Lindhorst
   (Case C-533/07)
   (2008/C 37/20)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Falco Privatstiftung, Thomas Rabitsch

      Defendant: Gisela Weller-Lindhorst
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a contract under which the owner of an incorporeal right grants the other contracting party the right to use that right (a licence agreement) a contract regarding ‘the provision of services’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I Regulation) (1)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           2.1.

                           Is the service provided at each place in a Member State where use of the right is allowed under the contract and also actually occurs?

                           2.2.

                           Or is the service provided where the licensor is domiciled or, as the case may be, at the place of the licensor's central administration?

                           2.3.

                           If Question 2.1 or Question 2.2 is answered in the affirmative, does the court which thereby has jurisdiction also have the power to rule on royalties which result from use of the right in another Member State or in a third country?

               3.

               If Question 1 or Questions 2.1 and 2.2 are answered in the negative: Is jurisdiction as regards payment of royalties under Article 5(1)(a) and (c) of the Brussels I Regulation still to be determined in accordance with the principles which result from the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the Brussels Convention)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-97/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ROVI Pharmaceuticals — Earlier Community figurative mark ROVI and earlier national word mark ROVIFARMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals v OHIM — Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)
   (Case T-97/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ROVI Pharmaceuticals - Earlier Community figurative mark ROVI and earlier national word mark ROVIFARMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 336/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH (Schlüchtern, Germany) (represented by: M. Berghofer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2010 (Case R 500/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA and Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred by Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos against the European Parliament (Case T-93/98)

text:
C 234/38             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
Some of the addressees brought actions for annulment                 Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos
of that decision pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         against the European Parliament
On 31 March 1993 the Court of Justice ruled that the                                        (Case T-93/98)
Wood pulp decision' was unlawful (the Wood pulp
judgment' (2)).                                                                              (98/C 234/71)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-227/95 (3) brought by the applicants, the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities annulled a             An action against the European Parliament was brought
refusal by the Commission to repay the fines which are               before the Court of First Instance of the European
the subject-matter of the contested decision in this case.           Communities on 8 June 1998 by Ioannis Rentzos, residing
                                                                     at Niederanven (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo
In Case T-292/97 (4) the applicants seek (inter alia) a              Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the EC Treaty that            service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 Route de
the Commission had failed to act on the obligations                  Longwy.
arising out of the judgment in Case T-227/95.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
In the present case the applicants submit that the                   Ð annul as unfounded the existing staff report on Mr
contested decision constitutes a repeated failure by the                 Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
Commission to comply with Article 176 of the EC Treaty.                  1 January 1997;
Its refusal to comply with the obligations arising out of
the Wood pulp judgment' was condemned as unlawful by                Ð declare unfounded the decision of the European
the Court of First Instance. It has now repeated its refusal             Parliament not to amend the staff report on Mr
to comply with the obligations arising out of the Wood                  Ioannis Rentzos for the period from 1 January 1995 to
pulp judgment' and has refused to comply with the                        1 January 1997;
judgment of the Court of First Instance as well.
                                                                     Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pursuant to Article 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty, the
contested decision should be annulled since it is in breach          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the Commission's obligations under Article 176 of the
Treaty and of the judgment in Case T-227/95.                         The applicant, a grade LA 5 official in Directorate-
                                                                     General 7 of the defendant institution, considers that his
                                                                     staff report for the period 1995Ð1997 does not accurately
Pursuant to Article 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, the                reflect the situation concerning his employment. That
Commission should be ordered to pay the applicants                   error of assessment results from a lack of objectivity and
compensation equivalent to the sums paid by them by way              from certain omissions in the precise description of the
of fines in respect of the alleged infringements found at            tasks performed by him.
Articles 1(1) and 1(2) of the Wood pulp decision',
together with interest from the date of payment of the
                                                                     In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement
fines until the date by which the Commission should have
                                                                     of the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Staff
complied with its obligations under the Wood pulp
                                                                     Regulations and breach of the general principles of
judgment', and interest in respect of the loss caused to the
                                                                     equality of treatment and of fairness.
applicants by the Commission's delay in complying with
its obligations under the Wood pulp judgment'.
                                                                     He considers in that regard that the failure to take into
                                                                     account all the tasks and missions carried out by him
(1) Decision 85/202/EEC (IV/29.725 Ð Wood pulp), OJ L 85 of
    26.3.1985, p. 1.                                                 during the period under consideration resulted in an
(2) Joined Cases C-89, 104, 114, 116, 117 and 125 to 129/85          incorrect appraisal of his ability, efficiency and conduct,
    [1993] ECR I-1307.                                               thereby distorting the administration's assessment in
(3) AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others v Commission              relation to him. Since he was not assessed in the light of
    [1997] ECR II-1185; appealed (Case C-310/97 P).                  all the factors which should have been taken into
(4) pending.                                                         consideration by the appointing authority, he was not
                                                                     treated on an equal footing with his colleagues and was
                                                                     unfairly treated.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-270/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/64)                                                      (2001/C 118/67)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-56/00: Commission of the                  from the register of Case C-270/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              European Communities v Austria.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-155/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-484/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/65)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/68)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 10 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-155/00: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Italy.                                         from the register of Case C-484/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/00 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-320/96 P (1)
                        (2001/C 118/66)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/69)
By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 14 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-186/00: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil              from the register of Case C-320/96 P: European Broadcasting
Division)]: Boston Scientific Ltd and Others v Cordis Corpor-         Union v Métropole Té1évision SA and Others.
ation and Cordis (UK) Ltd.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case T-554/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/60

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-554/13) (1)

   (2017/C 144/85)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-386/13: Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 September 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-386/13) (1)

   (2014/C 431/23)
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-421/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/6

         Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA against the judgment delivered on 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v Commission
   (Case C-421/11 P)
   2011/C 340/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

                     Primarily:

                           —

                           set aside, on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judgment of 7 June 2001 pf the General Court in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission;

                           —

                           grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court;

                           —

                           consequently, annul Articles 1(c) and (d), 2(b), 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006;

               —

                     in the alternative
                  : amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed jointly and severally on Elf Aquitaine and Total under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, as a result of the objective errors in the grounds and the reasons for the judgment (in particular the Court’s treatment of the deterrence factor) of the General Court of 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06, and reduce those joint and several fines to EUR 75 562 500 for Elf Aquitaine and EUR 58 500 000 for Total;

               —

                     in the further alternative
                  : amend, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fines imposed jointly and severally on Elf Aquitaine and Total under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006, in accordance with its unlimited jurisdiction, in the proportion which the Court deems appropriate;

               —

                     in the further alternative
                  : release Elf Aquitaine and Total from the obligation to pay overdue interest having accrued as from the date of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 to the date of judgment in Case T-217/06 Arkema France and Others v Commission;

               —

                     in any event
                  , order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Elf Aquitaine and Total before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants raise six main grounds of appeal and three in the alternative.
   By their first ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court infringed Article 5 EU in so far as it validated the principle that a parent company is automatically liable for the infringements committed by its subsidiary, applied in the present case by the Commission and justified by the concept of undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU. Such an approach is incompatible with the principles of conferral and subsidiarity (first part) and the principle of proportionality (second part).
   By the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the General Court made a manifestly erroneous interpretation of national law and of the concept of undertaking in that it conferred an imprecise legal value to the principle of autonomy of legal persons, inter alia.
   By the third ground of appeal, the appellants claim, in essence, that the General Court voluntarily refused to draw consequences from the criminal nature of competition law sanctions and from the new obligations resulting from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. In the appellants’ view, the General Court applied the concept of undertaking under EU law abusively and erroneously, in spite of the presumption of autonomy on which national company law is based and of the criminal nature of competition law sanctions. Moreover, the appellants submit that the General Court should have raised, of its own motion, the illegality of the current administrative procedure before the Commission.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that their rights of defence have been infringed as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the principles of fairness and equality of arms. The General Court approved the Commission’s use of a probatio diabolica and erred in finding that the autonomy of a subsidiary must be assessed in a general manner in relation to its capital links with its parent company, whereas it should be assessed in relation to its conduct on a given market.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants invoke an infringement of the duty to state reasons in that the General Court briefly took note of the rejection of their arguments by the Commission, without providing any analysis of the Commission's arguments (first part). Moreover, they allege errors in law with respect to the Commission’s obligation to state reasons (second part), and criticise the General Court for having substituted its own reasons for those of the Commission (third part).
   By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants allege infringement of the principle of sound administration in that the amount of the fine imposed on the appellants, which are parent companies, is higher than the amount inflicted on Arkema, the subsidiary which is liable for the infringement.
   By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellants criticise the General Court for having erred on a number of points of law in the application of a deterrent multiplier of 3 to the fine. In so doing the General Court infringed the 1998 Guidelines on the method of setting fines (first part) and also the indivisible nature of the basic amount of the fine (second part).
   By the eighth ground of appeal, the appellants ask for the amounts of the fines imposed on them to be reduced.
   By the ninth and last ground of appeal, the appellants ask for the overdue interest as requested by the Commission pursuant to the implementation of the contested decision and the judgment to be set aside.


title: Case C-99/02: Action brought on 15 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
18.5.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/19
1.    In respect of temporary officials of the EEC who, after the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      end of their period of service with the EEC reside in
      Belgium and in respect of whom no contributions were
      deducted in favour of the social security system and who          —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit
      are entitled to unemployment benefits paid by the EEC,                  prescribed all measures necessary for the recovery from
      do the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) preclude                 the recipients of aid granted unlawfully which is incom-
      national legislation from being fully applied to them,                  patible with the common market pursuant to Com-
      including the national rule against the overlapping of                  mission Decision 2000/128/EC (1) of 11 May 1999
      benefits under which, in accordance with the conditions                 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment
      governing the award of unemployment benefit the                         (notified on 4 June 1999 under document number
      employee must be without work and without salary, the                   C(1999) 1364), and therefore by not notifying the
      latter terms being deemed to include in particular:                     Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has
      remuneration in respect of termination of employment                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of
      or any compensation payable to the employee in respect                  that decision and under the EC Treaty;
      of termination of an employment relationship, with the
      exception of compensation for non-material damage?                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
2.    Does it run counter to Regulation of the Council
      No 1612/68 (2) (Article 7(4) of Title II) which provides
      that uniformity in social-security matters must be pursued
      and that there may be no discrimination that (in the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant’s view) there is inequality in the social-security
      status of post-doctoral assistants within the EEA, that in
      various Member States of the EEA a post-doctoral assist-          The Commission decision requires Italy to adopt ‘all necessary
      ant is deemed to carry on an occupational activity, albeit        measures to recover from the recipients the aid which does
      not subject to social security, and in Belgium a post-            not satisfy the conditions of Articles 1 and 2 and has already
      doctoral assistant (in the applicant’s view unjustly) is          been unlawfully paid.’ It must also notify the Commission,
      deemed to be a trainee (stagiaire) and a post-doctoral            within two months of the date of notification of that decision,
      fellow must arrange for his own social-security cover             ‘of the measures it has taken to comply herewith.’
      under the Belgian national system although that is not
      possible on a voluntary basis (at any rate in regard to
      unemployment assurance)?
                                                                        It must be concluded that upon the expiry of that time-limit
                                                                        the Italian Republic had not yet informed the Commission of
                                                                        the measures taken to recover the aid unlawfully paid.
(1) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
(2) OJ 1968, L 257, p. 2.
                                                                        The only defence a Member State may plead to an action for
                                                                        failure to comply with a decision imposing an obligation to
                                                                        recover aid is that implementation is absolutely impossible.
                                                                        That condition is not satisfied so long as the defendant
                                                                        government confines itself to informing the Commission of
                                                                        legal, political or practical obstacles to the implementation of
                                                                        the decision without taking any steps to ensure that the
                                                                        undertakings concerned pay back the aid, and without suggest-
                                                                        ing alternative means of implementing the decision so as to
Action brought on 15 March 2002 by the Commission of                    overcome those obstacles.
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        The Italian authorities have never claimed that implementation
                          (Case C-99/02)                                was absolutely impossible, nor have they ever officially
                                                                        requested an extension of time for the recovery or a suspension
                                                                        of execution of the decision, and nor have they suggested
                         (2002/C 118/31)                                alternative ways of applying the decision which would have
                                                                        enabled them to overcome the obstacles they faced.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 42 of 15.2.2000, p. 1.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Vittorio Di Bucci, acting as Agent.


title: Case T-381/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/14

      Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Düll v EUIPO — Cognitect (DaToMo)
      (Case T-381/16)
      (2016/C 364/10)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Klaus Düll (Südergellersen, Germany) (represented by: S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cognitect, Inc. (Durham, North Carolina, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DaToMo’ — EU trade mark No 6 715 627

         Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  alter the contested decision to the effect that the restriction ‘all the aforementioned for the enterprise mobility management (EMM)’ is not added to the services which, following the abovementioned decision, remain listed in the class specification for Class 42 in the list of goods and services covered by trade mark No 6715627 DaToMo;

                  —

                  order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 50 of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-395/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-395/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/119)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-26/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament
   (Case T-26/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 269/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvillers, France) (represented initially by J.-P. Le Moigne and subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation decision of 22 November 2016 taken by the European Parliament to waive Mr Jalkh’s parliamentary immunity in view of the judicial investigation (No 1422400530) brought before the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance (ordinary court of first instance, France).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Joined Cases T-529/08 to T-531/08: Order of the General Court of 13 April 2010 — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission (Application for annulment — State aid — Tax advantages — Recovery of State aid declared unlawful — Application of compound interest scheme — Confirmatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/30

         Order of the General Court of 13 April 2010 — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-529/08 to T-531/08) (1)

   (Application for annulment - State aid - Tax advantages - Recovery of State aid declared unlawful - Application of compound interest scheme - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 148/54
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others (Spain) (Case T-529/08); Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (Spain) (Case T-530/08); and Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (Spain) (Case T-531/08) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 2 October 2008, communicating to the applicants that is necessary to apply compound interest in the context of the recovery of State aid declared unlawful by Commission Decisions 2002/820/EC, 2002/894/EC and 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in respectively Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (respectively, OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1, OJ 2002 L 314, p. 26, and OJ 2003 L 17, p. 1), and Commission Decisions 2002/892/EC, 2002/540/EC and 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in respectively Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya (respectively, OJ 2002 L 314, p. 1, OJ 2002 L 174, p. 31 and OJ 2002 L 279, p. 35), which were upheld by the judgments of the General Court in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01, T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2009] ECR II-0000; and Joined Cases T-230/01 and T-267/01 to T-269/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2009] ECR II-0000.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya shall each bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case C-415/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/28

         Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
   (Case C-415/17)
   (2017/C 277/42)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, M. Mataija and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Croatia

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 196), by failing to take the necessary measures, by 17 June 2016, in order to comply with that directive or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission;

               —

               impose on the Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 9 275,20, with effect from the day on which judgment is given that there has been a failure to comply with the obligation to notify the measures for transposing Directive 2014/59/EU;

               —

               order the Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligation to inform the Commission of the measures for transposing Directive 2014/56/EU within the time limit laid down in Article 2 of that directive.


title: Case T-224/15: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament (Actions for annulment — Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Withdrawal of the contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/18

         Order of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-224/15) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Withdrawal of the contested act - Case not proceeding to judgment))
   (2016/C 059/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by V. Elvinger and S. Marx, and subsequently by S. Marx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Chrétien and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Decision No 103299 of 27 April 2015 of the Directorate General for Infrastructures and Logistics of the European Parliament rejecting the applicants’ bid for lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ in respect of the public procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is to pay those incurred by Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-149/06: Order of the President of the Court of 1 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzie delle Entrate v Porto Antico di Genova SpA

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzie delle Entrate v Porto Antico di Genova SpA
   (Case C-149/06) (1)

   (2008/C 142/35)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case T-60/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/55

         Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)
   (Case T-60/17)
   (2017/C 104/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Safe Skies LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Schwepler, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Travel Sentry, Inc. (Windermere, Florida, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TSA LOCK’ — EU trade mark No 4 530 168

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 233/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and to order the (potential) Intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-826/14: Action brought on 23 December 2014  — Spain v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/47

         Action brought on 23 December 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-826/14)
   (2015/C 065/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested Decision, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Commission Decision SA.35550 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 15 October 2014 concerning the scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1) and Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as the contested Decision is a measure formally lacking a statement of reasons and inasmuch as it does not contain an assessment of the measure in the light of the judgments of the General Court of 7 November 2014 in Cases T-219/10 and T-399/11.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU since the scheme in question is a measure of a general nature and not a selective measure.

               3.

               The third plea in law is based on there being no new aid and the consequent infringement of Article 13 of Regulation No 659/1999.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, in connection with Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999 and the Commission’s own statements in two earlier Decisions.


title: Case C-567/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 December 2007 — Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie v Woningstichting Sint Servatius

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 December 2007 — Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie v Woningstichting Sint Servatius
   (Case C-567/07)
   (2008/C 64/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie

      Defendant: Woningstichting Sint Servatius
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the requirement that the Minister give prior authorisation for any cross-frontier activities of an undertaking which is authorised by law to promote the Netherlands' public housing interests, which may rely on public resources for this purpose, which may operate, by law, solely in those interests, and which in principle has its area of activity within the Netherlands (‘authorised institution’) constitute a restriction on the free movement of capital, as referred to in Article 56 of the EC Treaty?

               2.a.

               Can a Member State's public housing interests be regarded as a public policy interest as referred to in Article 58 of the EC Treaty?

               2.b.

               Can a Member State's public housing interests be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice?

               2.c.

               More specifically, can interest in the effectiveness of the ability to finance a Member State's public housing system be regarded as a public policy interest as referred to in Article 58 of the EC Treaty or as an overriding reason in the public interest recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice?

               3.a.

               Assuming that the requirement of prior authorisation for an authorised institution as referred to in Question 1 constitutes a restriction for which there is justification as referred to in Questions 2.a, 2.b and 2.c, is that requirement necessary and proportionate?

               3.b.

               When applying that justification, does a Member State have a wide margin of discretion in determining the scale of the public interest concerned and the manner in which that interest is promoted? Is one of the determinants in this context the fact that the Community has few, if any, powers in the public housing sector?

               4.a.

               Besides, or in conjunction with, the overriding reasons in the public interest referred to in Article 58 of the EC Treaty and recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice, can a Member State rely on Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to justify a restriction on the free movement of capital, if special rights have been granted to the undertakings concerned and those undertakings are entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest?

               4.b.

               Do the public interests referred to in Article 58 of the EC Treaty and the overriding reasons in the public interest recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice have the same content as the general economic interest referred to in Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty?

               4.c.

               Does reliance by the Member State concerned on Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, its contention being that the undertakings to which special rights have been granted perform tasks of general economic interest, have additional weight over and above reliance on public interests as referred to in Article 58 of the EC Treaty and the overriding reasons in the public interest recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice?

               5.a.

               Can undertakings, such as the authorised institutions referred to in Question 1, which, on the one hand, are required to employ all their capital for the benefit of public housing, but which, on the other hand, also undertake commercial activities in respect of public housing, be regarded, for all or some of their tasks, as undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, as referred to in Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty?

               5.b.

               For the answer to Question 5.a to be in the affirmative, is it necessary for the undertakings concerned to keep separate accounts from which it is absolutely clear what costs and receipts are associated with their social activities, on the one hand, and with their commercial activities on the other, and for that obligation to be laid down in national legislation? Should it then be ensured that a Member State's financial resources benefit only the social activities and their continuity?

               6.a.

               If an authorised institution as referred to in Question 1 can be regarded, in respect of all or some of its activities, as an undertaking entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest as referred to in Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, can the entrustment of the operation of such services justify the imposition on the authorised institution of a restriction on the free movement of capital as referred to in Article 56 of the EC Treaty?

               6.b.

               When applying that justification, does a Member State have a wide margin of discretion in determining the scale of the general economic interest concerned and the manner in which that interest is promoted? Is one of the determinants in this context the fact that the Community has few, if any, powers in the public housing sector?

               7.a.

               Can the fact that a Member State provides certain undertakings as referred to in Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty with financial resources make it necessary for the territorial scale of their activities to be limited in order to prevent those financial resources from constituting prohibited State aid and the undertakings employing those resources in another Member State from competing with undertakings in that Member State under conditions which do not comply with market rules?

               7.b.

               Can a Member State, in this instance the Netherlands, require authorised institutions as referred to in Question 1 wishing to undertake housing construction activities of a social and commercial nature in another Member State to obtain prior authorisation if there is as yet no legal obligation in the first mentioned Member State to make a distinction between the two types of activity? Is the requirement of prior authorisation in this case a necessary and proportionate means of ensuring compliance with Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case C-507/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck lodged on 13 December 2006 — Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck lodged on 13 December 2006 — Malina Klöppel v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
   (Case C-507/06)
   (2007/C 56/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Malina Klöppel

      Defendant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
   Question(s) referred
   Must Article 72 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) (OJ, English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416) in the version amended and brought up to date by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 (2) (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 1) in conjunction with Article 3 of that regulation and Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3) (OJ, English special edition: Series I Chapter 1972(I) p. 0159) in the version amended and brought up to date by Commission Regulation (EC) No 410/2002 of 27 February 2002 (4) (OJ 2002 L 62, p. 17) be interpreted to the effect that periods of drawing family benefits in one Member State (in this case the national child-raising allowance in the Federal Republic of Germany) must be treated equally in relation to the entitlement to draw a comparable benefit in another Member State (in this case child-care allowance in Austria) and accordingly must be characterised as domestic periods of drawing for the purposes of entitlement in a second Member State if during those periods of drawing both parents should be regarded as employed persons under Article 1(a)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71?

      (1)  ABl. L 149, S. 2.

      (2)  ABl. L 187, S. 11.

      (3)  ABl. L 74, S. 1.

      (4)  ABl. L 62, S. 17.


title: Case C-244/09: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-244/09) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/49
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2000 in Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Family allowances — Orphan's pension — Conditions of grant — Actual maintenance of the child)

text:
9.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                          of 14 July 2000                                 offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v
                                                                          European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                          (Cedefop) (Agent: B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment
in Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                          of the decision of the European Centre for the Development of
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          Vocational Training of 3 June 1998 rejecting the applications
                                                                          submitted by the applicant for the grade A 7/A 5 post of Head
(Officials — Authorisation to publish — Second paragraph                  of General Support Services (Administration) and the grade
of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the                 A 5/A 4 post of Head of Administration and refusing to renew
        Communities — Manifest error of assessment)                       the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff
                                                                          beyond 30 June 1998 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                         (2000/C 259/31)                                  Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
                                                                          P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                          trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000,
                    (Language of the case: French)                        in which it:
In Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission              1.    Declares the action inadmissible in so far as it concerns the
of the European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium),                    decision not to renew the applicant’s contract beyond 30 June
represented by N. Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                  1998;
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker &
Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, v Commission of the European                     2.    Annuls the contested decision in so far as it rejects the
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment                     application submitted by the applicant for the post of Head of
of the Commission’s decision of 10 July 1998 refusing the                       Administration;
applicant authorisation to publish the text of the conference
speech given by him on 30 October 1997 — the Court of First               3.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,                  4.    Orders Cedefop to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       costs of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear half of
14 July 2000, in which it:                                                      his own costs.
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 July 1998 refusing
                                                                          (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
      the applicant authorisation to publish the text of the conference
      speech given by him on 30 October 1997;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 July 2000
                                                                          in Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek v Commission of the
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   European Communities (1)
                          of 13 July 2000                                 (Officials — Family allowances — Orphan’s pension —
                                                                             Conditions of grant — Actual maintenance of the child)
in Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre for
   the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)                                             (2000/C 259/33)
(Officials — Non-renewal of contract — Rejection of
applications for two posts — Admissibility — Competence                                       (Language of the case: French)
  — Legality of vacancy notices — Recruitment procedure)
                                                                          In Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek, residing in Brussels,
                         (2000/C 259/32)                                  represented by E. Causin and I. Jiménez Rojas, of the Brussels
                                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of D. Phong, 222a Avenue Gaston Diderich, v
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: F. Clotu-
                                                                          che-Duvieusart) — application principally for annulment of
In Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the Council             the Commission’s decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
of the European Union, residing at Ambelokipon (Greece),                  the applicant family allowances for herself and an orphan’s
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.9.2000
pension for her infant daughter — the Court of First Instance               applicant, 10 Am Gronn, Sandweiler, v Court of Justice of
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                 the European Communities (Agents: N. Lierow and C. Pinto
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Admin-              Correia) — application for annulment, first, of the decision of
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July                the selection board in competition No CJ 41/98 of 15 March
2000, in which it:                                                          1999 not to include the applicant’s name in the list of suitable
                                                                            candidates and, second, of all subsequent measures adopted in
1.    Declares that there is no need to rule on the applicant’s claim       the context of that competition, and also of the appointment
      for recognition of her entitlement to receive family allowances       of the successful candidate to the post of legal adviser on
      from July 1998 onwards;                                               administrative matters — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, and J.D. Cooke
2.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claims for recognition of the           and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
      entitlement of the applicant and of her child Mira Posnantek to       Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 July 2000, in which it:
      receive the family allowances which should have been paid to
      Roger Posnantek, together with default interest, pursuant to
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action;
      Article 67 of the Staff Regulations;
3.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 March 1999 inasmuch             2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      as it refuses to recognise, first, the applicant’s entitlement to
      receive the household allowance and the dependent child
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      allowance for the period running from the death of Roger
      Posnantek until the end of the third month following the month
      in which that death occurred and, second, the entitlement of the
      child Mira Posnantek to an orphan’s pension from July 1998
      onwards;
4.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the amount of
      the allowances and pension referred to in point 3 of the
      operative part of this judgment, together with default interest at        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the annual rate of 6,25 %, subject to the deduction therefrom
      of any benefits of the same kind which may have been received
                                                                                of 13 July 2000
      by the applicant from other sources;
5.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                in Case T-157/99: Helga Griesel v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
6.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two
      thirds of the applicant’s costs. The applicant is ordered to bear
      one third of her own costs.                                           (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons
                                                                            — Examination of the comparative merits of the candidates)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 In Case T-157/99: Helga Griesel, an official of the Council of
                                                                            the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                           of 14 July 2000                                  J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-146/99: Rui Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice of                  L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v Council of the
                  the European Communities (1)                              European Union (Agents: F. Anton and C. Robertson) — appli-
                                                                            cation for annulment of the Council’s decision not to promote
(Officials — Internal competition — Competition notice —                    the applicant from grade C 5 to grade C 4 in the course of the
Appointment to the post of legal adviser — Mandatory                        1998 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance
requirement — Preferential criterion — Statement of reasons                 (Single Judge: A. Potocki); G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
                       — Misuse of powers)                                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it:
                          (2000/C 259/34)                                   1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                            2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case T-146/99: Rui Teixeira Neves, an official of the Court              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
of Justice of the European Communities, residing at Sandweiler
(Luxembourg), represented by A. Encarnação, of the Oporto
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of the


title: Case T-209/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2008 — European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Natural and legal persons — Associations — Decision 2006/522/EC — Individual concern — Animal health — Protection measures in relation to avian influenza)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2008 — European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission
   (Case T-209/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Admissibility - Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Natural and legal persons - Associations - Decision 2006/522/EC - Individual concern - Animal health - Protection measures in relation to avian influenza)
   (2008/C 197/41)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands); Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels en Hobbydieren (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands); Willem Plomp, trading as Plomps Vogelhandel (Woerden, Netherlands); and Marinus Borgstein, trading as Borgstein Birds & Zoofood Trading (West Maas en Waal, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. van Heezik, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicants shall pay the costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-94/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/43

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission
   (Case T-94/08)
   (2008/C 92/86)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Clarebout and K. Platteau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in as much as it does not lay down a transitional period as required by the Forum 187
                   (1) judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003, the Commission and declared the aid scheme implemented by Belgium in favour of coordination centres established in Belgium incompatible with the internal market (2). That decision was annulled by judgment of the Court of 22 June 2006 (3) (‘the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission’) in that it did not provide for transitional measures with regard to certain of the coordination centres whose applications to benefit from the scheme in question were pending at the time of notification of that decision or whose approval expired at that time or shortly after notification of the decision. The applicant in the present case was one of the coordination centres referred to in the operative part of the judgment.
   On 13 November 2007, the Commission adopted a new decision, Decision C(2007) 5416 final, by which it amended Decision 2003/757/EC by declaring the Belgian law adopted following the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission incompatible with the internal market and seeking to permit extension until the end of 2010 of the transitional period during which the centres referred to in that judgment could benefit from the scheme. Decision C(2007) 5416 final also provided that the transitional period expires on 31 December 2005. This is the contested decision in the context of the present action.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises three pleas in law.
   As a principal plea, it submits that the contested decision infringes the principle of equal treatment and the obligation on the Commission to implement the measures contained in the judgment in Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, in that it would not put an end to the unequal treatment referred to in that judgment since the transitional period granted to the applicant is much shorter than that granted to centres in a similar situation according to the indication given by the Court. It submits that it should have benefited from a transitional period expiring on 31 December 2010.
   As an alternative plea, the applicant raises a plea alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations in that the contested decision establishes a transitional period limited to 31 December 2005, which produces retroactive effects and results in the applicant being unable in good time to take the steps necessary to adapt to the change in the scheme before that date. On that basis, and in the alternative, the applicant claims that it should benefit from a transitional period expiring on 31 December 2009 at the earliest.
   As a further alternative plea, the applicant raises a plea alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment in that the contested decision treats it differently from four coordination centres which were, at the time of the first decision, 2003/757/EC, in an identical situation but which obtained a renewal of their approval for an indefinite period. On the basis of that plea, and in the alternative, the applicant submits that it should have benefited from a transitional period expiring on 31 December 2006 at the earliest.

      (1)  Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479.

      (2)  OJ L 282, p. 25, corrected version OJ 2003 L 285, p. 52.

      (3)  See footnote 1.


title: Case C-155/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers from ionising radiation — Failure to transpose fully within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-155/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/29/Euratom - Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers from ionising radiation - Failure to transpose fully within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 211/11)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. White, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 54 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) — Absence of provisions enabling the implementation of all appropriate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past or old practice or work activity
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to allow for appropriate intervention in all situations leading to lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after-effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation;

               2.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-563/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 November 2011 — SIA Forvards V v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 November 2011 — SIA Forvards V v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-563/11)
   2012/C 13/17
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA Forvards V

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 17(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the right to deduct value added tax paid when goods are purchased can be denied to a taxable person who fulfils all the essential requirements for deduction of value added tax, without any abusive conduct on his part having been demonstrated, when the other party to the transactions was not able to effect the supply of the goods for factual or legal reasons (the other party to the transaction is fictitious or the person responsible for it denies the existence of any economic activity or of a specific transaction and that person has no capacity to fulfil the contract)?

               2.

               May a refusal to recognise the right to deduct value added tax be based as such on the circumstance that the other party to the transaction (the person indicated on the invoice) is considered fictitious (that is to say, his transaction does not relate to an economic activity)? Can the right to deduct input tax also be denied where no abusive practice on the part of the applicant for deduction of the input tax has been ascertained?

      (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 1977 L 145, p. 1)


20150731055616832015/C 270/57342014TFPC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150708434311Case F-34/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2015 — DP v ACER (Civil service — ACER staff — Member of the contract staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Action for annulment — Admissibility of the action — Plea of illegality of Article 6(2) of ACER’s GIP having regard to Article 85(1) of the CEOS — Action for damages — Notice period — Non-material harm — Damages)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4310120150708EN0057431431Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2015 — DP v ACER
   (Case F-34/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Civil service — ACER staff — Member of the contract staff — Non-renewal of a contract — Action for annulment — Admissibility of the action — Plea of illegality of Article 6(2) of ACER’s GIP having regard to Article 85(1) of the CEOS — Action for damages — Notice period — Non-material harm — Damages)’2015/C 270/57Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: DP (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet and S. Vaona, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contractual agent contract and a claim of damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

            1)

            Annuls the decision of 20 December 2013 by which the Director of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators refused to renew DP’s contract;

            2)

            Orders the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators to pay DP the sum of EUR 7000;

            3)

            Declares that the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by DP.

      (
         1
      )	OJ 2014 C 184, p. 46.


title: Case T-228/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Grupo de originación y análisis v EUIPO — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark BK PARTNERS — Earlier national word and figurative mark bk. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Grupo de originación y análisis v EUIPO — Bankinter (BK PARTNERS)
   (Case T-228/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BK PARTNERS - Earlier national word and figurative mark bk. - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 410/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo de originacion y análisis, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Burgueño Minguela and H. Pequerul Palenciano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: B. Uriarte Valiente and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bankinter, SA (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2015 (Case R 1329/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bankinter and Grupo de originación y análisis.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Grupo de originación y análisis, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015.


title: Case T-505/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission (Interim measures — Arrangements for the association of overseas countries and territories — 10th European Development Fund — Implementing rules — Netherlands Antilles — Application for suspension of implementation — Application for interim measures — Whether admissible)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission
   (Case T-505/13 R)
   (Interim measures - Arrangements for the association of overseas countries and territories - 10th European Development Fund - Implementing rules - Netherlands Antilles - Application for suspension of implementation - Application for interim measures - Whether admissible)
   2014/C 45/59
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Sona (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles) and Nao NV (Curaçao) (represented by: R. Martens, K. Beirnaert and A. Van Vaerenbergh, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek, G. Wils and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Re:

   Application (i) for suspension of the implementation of the Commission’s decision to designate International Management Group as the body to which powers are delegated in the context of the indirect centralised management of resources required to implement the single programming document for the Netherlands Antilles under the 10th European Development Fund and (ii) requesting the General Court provisionally to order the Commission to enter into negotiations with the applicants in good faith with a view to concluding a delegation agreement entrusting Stichting Sona with the tasks for the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund concerning the Netherlands Antilles, pending publication of the final report of the European Anti-Fraud Office following the investigation of the drainage project on the island of Bonaire.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case F-12/16: Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Frontex

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/22

         Action brought on 19 February 2016 — ZZ v Frontex
   (Case F-12/16)
   (2016/C 165/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and for damages for the harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               grant the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 in respect of the harm suffered in connection with the adoption of that decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-442/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2006 — Biofarma v OHIM — Anca Health Care (CAFON) (Community trade mark — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2006 — Biofarma v OHIM — Anca Health Care (CAFON)
   (Case T-442/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 310/35)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Biofarma (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the Court of First Instance: Anca Health Care Limited (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: Mathys & Squire)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 0098/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings relating to the application for registration of the word mark ‘CAFON’ as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               It is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-629/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car) (Community trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a car — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)
   (Case T-629/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a car - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Delord and R. Grewal, Solicitors)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a car 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 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) in so far as it refused registration of the mark applied for as regards ‘vehicles for locomotion by air and water’ in Class 12;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Jaguar Land Rover Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               4.

               Orders OHIM to bear one-tenth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-519/06 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2006 by Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc v Commission of the Eurooean communities

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/18

         Appeal brought on 20 December 2006 by Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc v Commission of the Eurooean communities
   (Case C-519/06 P)
   (2007/C 56/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, abogado, J. L. Buendía Sierra, membre du service juridique)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC), Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, Spain Pharma, SA, GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, anciennement Glaxo Wellcome plc
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside point 1 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 in case T-168/01;

               —

               give final judgment in case T-168/01 by entirely rejecting GLAXO's claim and confirming Commission Decision 2001/791/EC; and

               —

               set aside points 3, 4, and 5 of the said judgment relating to costs, and to order GLAXO to bear entirely the costs of case T-168/01 and of the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:
   Erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC
   The applicant maintains that the Court of First Instance (hereinafter ‘CFI’) wrongly rejected the Commission's finding that GLAXO'S dual pricing had as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition and argues that dual pricing and export bans are anticompetitive by their very nature. The applicant also submits that the CFI has wrongly applied article 81(1) EC in the context of a regulated sector, that the contested judgment incorrectly analyses the legal and economic context of the case and that the CFI is manifestly wrong in law in its assessment of the goal of the competition rules contained in the EC Treaty and in its analysis of consumer welfare arising from parallel trade.
   Erroneous application of Article 81(3) EC
   According to the contested judgment the Commission failed in its assessment of the causal link between parallel trade and innovation and between article 4 of the General Sales Conditions and innovation. The CFI also held that the Commission's conclusions regarding the effect of the currency fluctuations on the parallel trade between Spain and the UK were erroneous. The applicant submits that the Commission's appraisal regarding these points was entirely correct and that there was no manifest error of assessment and that the CFI therefore wrongly interpreted article 81(3) EC.
   Finally the applicant submits that the CFI reversed the burden of proof regarding article 81(3) EC and did not correctly analyse the Commission's evaluation of the second, third and fourth conditions of that article. The applicant maintains that the four conditions for granting an exemption under article 81(3) are cumulative and therefore the non-fulfilment of only one of these conditions is sufficient grounds for the Commission to reject the application for exemption. As a consequence the CFI cannot annul a negative decision if it has not previously completely assessed the Commission's analysis of the four conditions contained in article 81(3) and concluded that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment as regards those conditions.


title: Case C-421/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S (Appeal — EU trade mark — Registration of signs consisting of a surface with black dots — Declaration of invalidity — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) — Article 51(3))

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 — Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Pi-Design AG, Bodum France SAS, Bodum Logistics A/S
   (Case C-421/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Registration of signs consisting of a surface with black dots - Declaration of invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Article 51(3)))
   (2017/C 239/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (represented by: J. Cohen, Solicitor, T. St Quintin, Barrister, and G. Hobbs QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, D. Gaja and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents), Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France SAS (Neuilly sur Seine, France), Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: H. Pernez, avocate, and R. Löhr, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.