title: Action brought on 16 March 1995 by René Bebin against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-84/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/25
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              — order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of sixty
                        of 21 June 1995                                   thousand French francs ( FF 60 000 ) for irrecoverable
                                                                          costs, or the equivalent in ecus,
in Case T-370/94 : Jacques Vigel v. Commission of the
                  European Communities ( J )                          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
(Officials — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an
               official — Promotion procedure)                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                           ( 95/C 208/55 )
                                                                      In 1978 the applicant, who is the manager of a farmers'
                (Language of the case: French)                        association ( GAEC ), received a premium for conversion
                                                                      from dairy herds to the production of beef and veal or
In Case T-370/94 : Jacques Vigel , an official of the                 sheepmeat and in 1991 he was allocated a specific reference
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                   quantity under Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( x ) and offered
Bergen ( Netherlands ), represented by Constantin Nikis, of           compensation of FF 543 871,13 pursuant to Regulation
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ( 2 ); he challenges the decision of the
at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,           Office National Interprofessionnel du Lait ( National Milk
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                Trades Board , ONILAIT ) refusing to pay him that
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of               compensation on the ground that his specific reference
Notice to Staff No PE/A/637 of the Petten Joint Research              quantity cannot be regarded as being definitive, since he has
Centre ( Netherlands ) of 20 April 1994 showing that the              never personally resumed milk production . In 1992 the
applicant was not included on the list of persons to be               members of the GAEC settled the constitution of a farming
considered for promotion or an additional step in the 1994            partnership but did not however thereby create a new legal
promotion exercise, and for the award of damages of Bfrs              person .
75 000 as compensation for non-material damage and Bfrs
250 000 as compensation for material damage suffered by               The applicant considers that the contested decision is the
the applicant — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                  result of a mistaken assessment of the facts of the matter by
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the                 the competent authority . From the actual nature of the legal
Chamber, R. Schintgen and R. Garcfa-Valdecasas, Judges,               relationships it must be deduced on the one hand that the
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 21 June 1995 , in            only lawful holder of the reference quantity originally
which it :
                                                                      allocated was the EARL BENIN ( the Benin limited liability
I. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                         farm-holding ) to which all assets necessary for production,
                                                                      in particular the right to the lease on the farm, had been
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       transferred, and on the other that the EARL BENIN had
                                                                      been turned into a farming partnership without creating a
(M Of No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                      new legal person.
                                                                      Accordingly, the contested decision is based on a
                                                                      misinterpretation of the concepts of holding and producer
Action brought on 16 March 1995 by Rene Bebin against                 within the meaning of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 ( 3 ).
       the Commission of the European Communities                     Furthermore, creating the EARL BENIN and turning it into
                                                                      a farming partnership merely constitute 'a necessary
                         ( Case T-84/95 )                             structural adaptation ' within the meaning of Regulation
                           ( 95/C 208/56 )                            ( EEC ) No 804/68 (4 ) which cannot in any way interfere with
                                                                      controlling milk production .
                (Language of the case: Frenchj
                                                                      (>) OJ  No L 90 , 31 . 3 . 1984 , p . 13 .
An action against the Commission of the European                      (2) OJ  No L 196 , 4 . 8 . 1993 , p . 16 .
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     (3) OJ  No L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p. 1 .
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995                 ( ) OJ  English Special Edition 1968(1 ), p. 176 .
by Rene Bebin, joint managing partner in the farming
partnership R. D. M. , resident at Le Rheu ( France ),
represented by Philippe Olive , of the Rennes Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'Rue .
                                                                      Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Bernard Laga against
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                the Commission of the European Communities
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                                            ( Case T-93/95 )
     pay to Rene Bebin, in his capacity as managing partner                                        ( 95/C 208/57 )
     of the farming partnership R. D. M. and for the
     partnership, the sum of five hundred and forty-three
     thousand eight hundred and seventy-one French francs                             (Language of the case: French)
     thirteen centimes ( FF 543 871,13 ) together with interest
     thereon to run from the date of this action and                  An action against the Commission of the European
     capitalization of the interest or its equivalent in ecus ,       Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-393/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 September 2008 — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia and Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 September 2008 — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia and Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma
   (Case C-393/08)
   (2008/C 285/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emanuela Sbarigia

      Defendants: Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia and Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with the Community principles upholding freedom of competition and freedom to provide services, laid down inter alia in Articles 49 EC, 81 EC, 82 EC, 83 EC, 84 EC, 85 EC and 86 EC, to impose on pharmacies the abovementioned prohibitions — whereby they are not allowed either to decline to take an annual holiday or to remain open whenever they so desire, beyond the maximum limits at present allowed under the abovementioned provisions of Lazio Regional Law No 26/2002 — and the concomitant additional requirement, under Article 10(2) of that Regional Law, of a prior discretionary assessment by the Administration (carried out in agreement with the bodies and organisations specified in that article) as to the special nature of the municipal area in which the applicant pharmacies are located, as a precondition for obtaining a derogation from those prohibitions within the Municipality of Rome?

               2.

               Is it compatible with Articles 152 EC and 153 EC to impose on the public pharmacy service, albeit with the aim of protecting the health of consumers, conditions — such as those laid down in Regional Law No 26/2002 — limiting or precluding the possibility of extending the daily, weekly or annual opening times of individual pharmacies?


title: Case T-354/12: Order of the General Court of 17 September 2014 — Afepadi and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Health claims made in the labelling and advertising of foods — Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 — Recitals 11, 14 and 17 — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/20

         Order of the General Court of 17 September 2014 — Afepadi and Others v Commission
   (Case T-354/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Health claims made in the labelling and advertising of foods - Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 - Recitals 11, 14 and 17 - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 431/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi) (Barcelona, Spain); Elaborados Dietéticos, SA (Palma de Cervelló, Spain); Nova Diet, SA (Burgos, Spain); Laboratorios Vendrell, SA (Barcelona); and Ynsadiet, SA (Leganés, Spain) (represented by: P. Velázquez González, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In particular, an action for the annulment of recitals 11, 14 and 17 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi), Elaborados Dietéticos, SA, Nova Diet, SA, Laboratorios Vendrell, SA and Ynsadiet, SA shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-207/12 P P: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2014  — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Act following a request to place a document on the file compiled for the purposes of examining the application for recognition of an incident suffered by the appellant — Absence of act having adverse effect — preparatory act — Informative measure — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/30

         Order of the General Court of 12 May 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-207/12 P P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Act following a request to place a document on the file compiled for the purposes of examining the application for recognition of an incident suffered by the appellant - Absence of act having adverse effect - preparatory act - Informative measure - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part))
   2014/C 212/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case F-56/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 –Barnett and Mogensen v Commission (Civil service — Retired officials — Retirement pensions — Article 64 of the Staff Regulations — Weightings — Annual update of weightings — Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations — Interim update — Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Sensitivity threshold — Change in the cost of living — Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations — Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 — Scope — Regulation No 1416/2013 — Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark — Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism — Misuse of powers)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 –Barnett and Mogensen v Commission
   (Case F-56/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Retired officials - Retirement pensions - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - Weightings - Annual update of weightings - Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim update - Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Sensitivity threshold - Change in the cost of living - Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations - Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 - Scope - Regulation No 1416/2013 - Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark - Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism - Misuse of powers))
   (2016/C 106/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Adrian Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) and Sven-Ole Mogensen (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who are resident in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension receipts for June 2014, and a claim for compensation for the non-material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the different and contradictory information used to support the contested decisions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Barnett and Mr Mogensen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-5/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Interlocutory procedure for review of constitutionality — Examination of whether a national law complies with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned — Discretion enjoyed by a national court to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling — National legislation levying a duty on the use of nuclear fuel — Directives 2003/96/EC and 2008/118/EC — Article 107 TFEU — Articles 93 EA, 191 EA and 192 EA)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück
   (Case C-5/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Interlocutory procedure for review of constitutionality - Examination of whether a national law complies with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned - Discretion enjoyed by a national court to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling - National legislation levying a duty on the use of nuclear fuel - Directives 2003/96/EC and 2008/118/EC - Article 107 TFEU - Articles 93 EA, 191 EA and 192 EA))
   (2015/C 236/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has doubts as to whether national legislation is compatible with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned neither loses the right nor, as the case may be, is exempt from the obligation to submit questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation or validity of that law, on the ground that an interlocutory procedure for review of the constitutionality of that legislation is pending before the national court responsible for carrying out such review.

               2)

               Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity and Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which levies a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

               3)

               Article 107 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which levies a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

               4)

               The first paragraph of Article 93 EA, Article 191 EA, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the second paragraph of Article 192 EA, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 1 EA and Article 2(d) EA, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-11/08: Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/58

         Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)
   (Case T-11/08)
   (2008/C 64/94)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co. Ltd (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 October 2007 served to the representatives of the applicant on 30 October 2007, in Case R 1380/2006-3;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Community Design No 000 163 290 — 0002

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd

      Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered US design in respect for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Patent No D 282 071

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Invalidity Division and declared the design invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs
   The applicant claims that the freedom of designers of combustion engines is narrowed to designs which fulfil the requirement of functionality. In addition, the industry's state of art being nearly exhausted, it is even more difficult for designers in this field to provide an alternative offering a totally different overall impression without reducing the design's functionality. Hence, according to the applicant, even the slightest details have to be taken into consideration when assessing the individual character of the design.
   The applicant further submits that it nevertheless succeeded to maintain functionality as well as technical features of the challenged design, while giving its essential components an individual character.


title: Case C-23/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgement of 6 November 2001 in the case of Office National de l'Emploi against Mohamed Alami

text:
C 97/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.4.2002
ruling concerning the application for registration in the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Commercial Register made to that court by Holto Ltd. — on                   Commerce de Marseille by order of 22 January 2002 in
the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — the                        the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against Seatrano Shipping
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of                                             Company Limited
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order on                                            (Case C-24/02)
22 January 2002 in which it has ordered:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly lacks                                         (2002/C 97/04)
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Salzburg
in its order of 27 November 2000.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunal de Commerce
                                                                            de Marseille (Marseille Commercial Court) of 22 January 2002,
                                                                            received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the case of Marseille Fret S.A. against
                                                                            Seatrano Shipping Company Limited on the following ques-
                                                                            tions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                           1.    Does Title II of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
Cassation (Belgium) by judgement of 6 November 2001 in                            1968, as reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
the case of Office National de l’Emploi against Mohamed                           22 December 2000 (1), permit a court of a Member State
                                Alami                                             to restrain a citizen of another Contracting State from
                                                                                bringing proceedings before the courts of his home
                                                                                country, under either his national law or Community
                           (Case C-23/02)                                         law?
                           (2002/C 97/03)                                   2.    May an English court, by way of an anti-suit injunction,
                                                                                purport to restrain a person from having access to another
                                                                                Community court which nevertheless have jurisdiction
                                                                                under the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            reproduced in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Decem-
European Communities by judgement of the Cour de Cassation                        ber 2000?
(National Employment Office) (Belgium) of 6 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Office National de l’Emploi               3.    May an English court, by means of that procedure deprive
(National Employment Office) against Mohamed Alami on the                         other Community courts of the power to rule on matters
following question:                                                               falling within their own competence when that power
                                                                                appears to arise from the provisions of Chapter II of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000?
Does the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
in Rabat on 27 April 1976, concluded on behalf of the                       4.    Is an order compelling a Community national to with-
Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of                               draw an independent action already commenced before a
26 September 1978 (1), preclude a Member State from taking                        French court, under threat of punitive sanctions such as
account only of work periods as an employee completed on                          those provided for by the English anti-suit injunction
its territory by workers of Moroccan nationality for the                          procedure, consistent with the fundamental principle of
purposes of determining whether they are entitled to benefit                      the right to access to a court, as protected by the Court
from a supplement for seniority increasing the basic amount                       of Justice of the European Communities?
of their unemployment benefit?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978                (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
    concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between              jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
    the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco                  civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1).
    (OJ L 264, 27.9.1978, p. 1).


title: Case T-172/12: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Be Light — Earlier Community mark BECK’s — relative ground for refusal — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/77

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Brauerei Beck v OHIM — Aldi (Be Light)
   (Case T-172/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Be Light - Earlier Community mark BECK’s - relative ground for refusal - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/171
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and C. Töbelmann Valeska, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (representanted by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen Cay, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 2258/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Brauerei Beck GmbH & Co. KG to pay, besides its own costs, those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Aldi GmbH & Co. KG.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case T-631/16: Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/47

         Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission
   (Case T-631/16)
   (2016/C 392/62)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Remag Metallhandel GmbH (Steyr, Austria) and Werner Jaschinsky (St. Ulrich bei Steyr, Austria) (represented by: M. Lux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that, given OLAF’s request and subsequent insistence that the authorities of the Member States recover anti-dumping duties for all consignments of silicon metal exported from Taiwan to the EU in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 66) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 of 25 May 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not (OJ 2010 L131), although no or insufficient proof has been provided by OLAF that the silicon imported by Remag from Taiwan is of Chinese origin, the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages to the applicants as specified in the application, together with default interest at the rate of 8 % annually, and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings before Court be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by requesting Member States to recover anti-dumping duties before the investigation had confirmed the origin of the goods in order to avoid the allegedly owed duties from becoming time-barred, OLAF instructed and incited national administrations to infringe Articles 220(1) and 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (CCC).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by disregarding in its recovery request the fact that a transhipment of silicon from China does not prove that the silicon is of Chines origin, OLAF infringed the principle of sound administration and the obligation to base its conclusions on substantiated evidence.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by claiming that all exports of silicon from Taiwan concerned good originating in China, OLAF disregarded the burden of proof for non-preferential origin.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by claiming that the processing taking place in Taiwan was insufficient for conferring Taiwanese origin without taking into account the use of the processed silicon, OLAF disregarded the rules of origin as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s rights of defence.


title: Case C-485/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 1 December 2009 — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 1 December 2009 — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-485/09)
   2010/C 37/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, (1) in the version of Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport, (2) apply to rail transport?

               2.

               In situations in which the breach of Directive 91/628/EEC has not resulted in the death of the animals, are courts generally under an obligation to examine whether the competent authority of the Member State applied Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (3) in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52.

      (3)  OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19.


title: Case T-61/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/62

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-61/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/111)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-178/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — Bavaria v Council

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/46

         Action brought on 28 June 2006 — Bavaria v Council
   (Case T-178/06)
   (2006/C 224/100)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Bavaria N.V. (represented by: G. van der Wal, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant submits that the Court should:

               —

               Hold that the invalidity of Regulation No 1347/2001 gives rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 288 EC;

               —

               Order the Council to compensate Bavaria in respect of the damage which it has suffered, and which it will suffer, and set such compensation at EUR 100 million, or at such amount as the Court may consider to be meet and proper, with payment of default interest as appropriate;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the Council is liable in respect of the damage suffered, and to be suffered, by it as a result of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 (1), which registers the designation ‘Bayerisches Bier’ as a protected geographical indication. The applicant submits that Regulation No 1347/2001 is unlawful and cannot for that reason apply as against the applicant. The harm which the applicant has incurred through that illegality consists in, among other things, the costs of proceedings which have to be conducted, and which have been conducted, in various Member States, damage to the reputation of its marks containing the word ‘Bavaria’, and the future damage consequent on the infringement and loss of its trade mark rights.
   The applicant submits that ‘Bayerisches Bier’ has been incorrectly designated as a geographical indication inasmuch as beer is not an agricultural product or a foodstuff within the terms of Annex I to the EC Treaty. According to the applicant, Regulation No 2081/92 (2) cannot constitute the legislative basis for the registration of ‘Bayerisches Bier’ as a protected geographical indication in view of the fact that that regulation is also unlawful.
   The applicant goes on to contend that the Council wrongly proceeded from the premise that the indication ‘Bayerisches Bier’ meets the requirements of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 2081/92.
   That conclusion, the applicant argues, was not adequately reasoned, particularly in light of the fact that the application for registration was not uncontested.
   The designation ‘Bayerisches Bier’ also fails to meet the requirements governing application of the simplified procedure under Articles 17 and 2 of Regulation No 2081/92 inasmuch as that designation did not, prior to the reference date of 25 July 1993, enjoy any legal protection in Germany and had not become current through usage.
   The applicant goes on to state that Bavaria is one of the German Länder and that the name of a Land may only in exceptional cases be used for a protected indication.
   ‘Bayerisches Bier’ also does not, according to the applicant, have any regional qualitative renown or reputation as it covers a large assortment of products with very differing characteristics. It submits that Regulation No 2081/92 does not permit the status of a protected geographical indication to be attributed to a generic collective term for different types of beer.
   The application for registration by Germany also did not, the applicant argues, satisfy the requirements of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2081/92 and provided an inadequate basis for registration.
   The applicant submits further that the Council breached Article 3 of Regulation No 2081/92 and Article 28 EC by registering ‘Bayerisches Bier’, as that designation is a generic name in several Member States.
   The procedure under Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 is also, the applicant avers, invalid inasmuch as concerned parties did not have any opportunity to set out their views in a transparent and fair administrative procedure.
   It claims further that the Council proceeded from an erroneous point of view concerning the existence of beer types containing the designation ‘Bayerisches Bier’, in that none of the applicant's marks contains the indication ‘Bayerisches Bier’.
   The applicant also alleges infringement of its exclusive trade-mark rights as set out in Article 16(1) of the Agreement of 15 April 1994 on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, including the trade in counterfeit goods (‘the TRIPS Agreement’). The extent of the permitted use of a geographical indication is not defined in greater detail by Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2081/92 or by Regulation No 1347/2001. The fact that the applicant's exclusive right is not fully protected is at variance with Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement. Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2081/92 also applies conditions which are different from, and more restrictive than, Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement. The co-existence between the older Bavaria mark and the geographical indication ‘Bayerisches Bier’ is also, the applicant submits, incompatible with Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement.
   The fact that the Council merely took account of the ‘Bavaria’ trade mark and ignored the brand name ‘Bavaria’ is also, it claims, contrary to the TRIPS Agreement.
   By way of conclusion, the applicant submits that, in adopting Regulation No 1347/2001, the Council has infringed its property rights and legitimate expectations. In particular, the applicant contends, one consequence of Regulation No 1347/2001 may be to prevent the applicant from making further use of its trade mark in one or more Member States.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 of 28 June 2001 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 2001 L 182, p. 3).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).


title: Case C-455/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands), lodged on 17 September 2010 — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands), lodged on 17 September 2010 — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-455/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk

      Respondent: Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to a worker who, after her last employment, but while in receipt of a work incapacity benefit, transfers her place of residence in a border region to a Member State other than the competent Member State?

               2.

               Must Article 45 TFEU and/or Article 21 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as Article 19(1)(f) of the Werkloosheidswet (Netherlands Law on unemployment), which makes the revival of entitlement to unemployment benefit conditional on the place of residence of the person concerned being within the territory of the Netherlands, even if that person lives just a short distance from the Netherlands border and is entirely focused on the Netherlands labour market, is compatible with those articles?

      (1)  Council Regulation 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 (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).


title: Case C-67/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014  — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) v European Commission, BNP Paribas, BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Épargne and de Prévoyance (CNCEP), Société Générale SA (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 81(1) EC — Payment cards system in France — Decision by an association of undertakings — Issuing market — Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’  — Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’ and ‘dormant member “wake-up” ’ mechanism — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’  — Examination of the degree of harm to competition)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) v European Commission, BNP Paribas, BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Épargne and de Prévoyance (CNCEP), Société Générale SA
   (Case C-67/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81(1) EC - Payment cards system in France - Decision by an association of undertakings - Issuing market - Pricing measures applicable to ‘new entrants’ - Membership fee, mechanism for ‘regulating the acquiring function’ and ‘dormant member “wake-up”’ mechanism - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Examination of the degree of harm to competition))
   2014/C 409/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (represented by: F. Pradelles, O. Fauré and C. Ornellas-Chancerelles, avocats, and by J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet, V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents), BNP Paribas (represented by: O. de Juvigny, D. Berg and P. Heusse, avocats), BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Épargne and de Prévoyance (CNCEP) (represented by: A. Choffel, S. Hautbourg, L. Laidi and R. Eid, avocats), Société Générale SA (represented by: P. Guibert and P. Patat, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 November 2012 in Case T-491/07 CB v Commission;

               2)

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-349/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo lodged on 27 July 2007 — Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado, Lda v Direcção Regional de Contencioso e Controlo Aduaneiro

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo lodged on 27 July 2007 — Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado, Lda v Direcção Regional de Contencioso e Controlo Aduaneiro
   (Case C-349/07)
   (2007/C 235/17)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sopropé — Organizações de Calçado, Lda

      Defendant: Direcção Regional de Contencioso e Controlo Aduaneiro
   Question referred

               1.

               Is the period of 8 (eight) to 15 (fifteen) days set by Article 60(6) of the Lei Geral Tributária (General Tax Law) and by Article 60(2) of the Regime Complementar do Procedimento de Inspecção Tributária (Supplementary Rules of Procedure of the Tax Inspectorate), approved by Decree-Law No 413/98 of 31 de December 1998, for the exercise by the taxpayer either orally or in writing of the right to a hearing compatible with the principle of respect for the rights of the defence?

               2.

               May a period of 13 (thirteen) days, reckoned from the notification made by the customs authority to a Community importer (in this case a small undertaking dealing in footwear) to exercise its right to a prior hearing in 8 (eight) days and the date of notification to pay import duties in 10 (ten) days in relation to 52 imports of footwear from the far east under the GSP made over a period of two-and-a-half years (between 2000 and mid-2002), be considered reasonable for an importer to exercise its rights of defence?


title: Case T-264/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007 — WWF European Policy Programme v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest — Partial access)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2007 — WWF European Policy Programme v Council
   (Case T-264/04) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Exceptions relating to the protection of the public interest - Partial access)
   (2007/C 96/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: WWF European Policy Programme (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Haynes, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and P. Aalto, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the Council's decision of 30 April 2004 refusing to give the applicant access to certain documents relating to the meeting of the committee of the Council known as ‘the Article 133 Committee ’of 19 December 2003.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-380/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L.

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears (Spain) lodged on 16 July 2015 — Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L.
   (Case C-380/15)
   (2015/C 354/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Illes Balears

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Francisca Garzón Ramos and José Javier Ramos Martín

      Defendants: Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, S.A., Intercotrans, S.L.

      Questions referred

               1.

               In providing that a court seised of ordinary proceedings for the annulment of an enforceable instrument cannot under any circumstances grant interim relief staying mortgage enforcement proceedings relating to the instrument claimed to be null and void, is Article 698(1) of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil compatible with the principle of effective judicial protection affirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1)?

               2.

               In the event that the answer to the previous question is that the provision of Spanish law is not compatible with the article of the Charter in question, is the case-law of the Court of Justice, and in particular its judgment in Case C-169/14 (2)
                  Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García, therefore applicable to this case?

      (1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

      (2)  EU:C:2014:2099.


title: Case T-547/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2010 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM (Orange colouring of the toe of a sock) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark — Orange colouring of the toe of a sock — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2010 — X Technology Swiss v OHIM (Orange colouring of the toe of a sock)
   (Case T-547/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark - Orange colouring of the toe of a sock - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 209/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (Wollerau, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against decision R 846/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 October 2008 relating to an application to register the sign consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders X Technology Swiss GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-496/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Appeals — Officials — Success in internal competitions for change of category under the old Staff Regulations — Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules for classification in grade — Plea of illegality — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-496/08 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Officials - Success in internal competitions for change of category under the old Staff Regulations - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules for classification in grade - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials)
   2010/C 113/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau, Francisco Javier Solana Ramos (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen and K. Zejdová, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ application for annulment of the individual decisions classifying them in grade, taken pursuant to transitional measures laid down in Annex XIII and, in particular, Article 2 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Ending, following entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, of classification in grade following success in an internal competition held under the old Staff Regulations — Whether interest in bringing an action retained despite the contested decisions becoming obsolete — Principles of the retaining of acquired rights and the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of equal treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross appeal;

               3.

               Orders Ms Angé Serrano, Mr M. Bras, Orcajo Teresa, Decoutere, Hau, Solana Ramos, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21. 2. 2009.


title: Case C-202/16: Action brought on 12 April 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/14

         Action brought on 12 April 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-202/16)
   (2016/C 200/20)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Μ. Patakia and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by permitting the problematic operation of the sanitary landfill site at Temploni, which does not meet the conditions and requirements of European Union environmental legislation under Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/ΕC (1) on waste and repealing certain Directives, and Articles 8(a) and 11(1) of and Annex Ι to Directive 99/31/ΕC (2) on the landfill of waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               This case concerns the failure of the Hellenic Republic to comply with the obligations stemming from Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives, Articles 8(a), 11(1) and Annex Ι of Directive 99/31/ΕC on the sanitary landfill of waste. The infringement of those provisions relates to the operation of the sanitary landfill at Articles 8(a), 11(1) and Annex Ι of Directive 99/31/ΕC at Temploni in Corfu.

               2.

               The subject matter of this action is the problematic operation of the sanitary landfill site at Temploni and the harmful effects on the environment, in connection with the failure of the Greek authorities to adopt the measures required and laid down by the EU legislation, with a view to the operation of the landfill site being fully compliant with the conditions and requirements of EU legislation.

               3.

               The Commission, in the course of the infringement procedure, had identified various problems in the defective operation of the landfill site, which were confirmed by various inspections carried out between 2009 and 2012 by the competent Greek authorities.

               4.

               In their last response of 23 March 2015 the Greek authorities informed the Commission that:

                           —

                           a new dossier of amendments to the Decision defining the environmental terms of the landfill site with a view to the specification of various works which must be carried out in order that the landfill site should operate correctly has been adopted;

                           —

                           further to the inspection of 8 August 2014 (and the confirmation of new infringements) the procedure for the imposition of administrative penalties, on the operator, has been again initiated by the local authorities;

                           —

                           various essential works remain underway, such as for example the works relating to the processing of biogas (the Commission observes that the Greek authorities report now and for the first time that the amendment of the environmental terms of the landfill site is a wholly necessary precondition for the completion of those works);

                           —

                           the procedure for finding a site for the new landfill site which has to be installed on the island has still not been completed.

               5.

               The Commission considers that it is clear that the landfill site established at Temploni continues to operate incorrectly and while some defects come to an end, others come to light in the passage of time, with the result that it is impossible to list them exhaustively, since there are ongoing changes. In any event, whatever the exact number of infringements, the Commission considers that it is manifest (and it is not disputed by the Greek authorities) that the operation of the landfill site fails to comply with the requirements of the two abovementioned directives. Notwithstanding the inspections which revealed repeated significant problems in the defective operation of the landfill site, the Greek authorities continue to permit it to operate.

      (1)  OJ L 312 of 22.11.2008, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Case T-190/05: Action brought on 9 May 2005 by The Sherwin-Williams Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Action brought on 9 May 2005 by The Sherwin-Williams Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-190/05)
   (2005/C 171/55)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 2005 by The Sherwin-Williams Company, represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2003 (Case R 755/2004-2);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark TWIST & POUR — Application No 3.071.041, for goods in Class 21 (hand held plastic containers sold as an integral part of a liquid paint containing storage and pouring device)

               Decision of the examiner contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94


title: Case C-21/08 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2008 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2007 in Case T-38/04: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/31

         Appeal brought on 22 January 2008 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 November 2007 in Case T-38/04: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-21/08 P)
   (2008/C 64/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd (represented by: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl, S. Prückner, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment under appeal;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to bear costs of the proceeding.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) by comparing single parts of the two trademarks and not assessing their overall impression on the consumer.
   According to the appellant the Court of First Instance distorted facts and evidence when it stated that the device part of the trademark applied for contains a stylized sun rather than a ‘star’ symbol and when it omitted to take the letter ‘S’ into account when comparing the overall impression of the trademarks.
   The appellant also maintains that the reasoning of the Court of First Instance is contradictory in that, at paragraph 39 of the judgment, it states that the additional components create differences between the trademarks but fails to consider those components when comparing the trademarks phonetically.
   Finally the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in not taking into account the category of goods and services in question and the circumstances in which they are marketed when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (JO L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-305/12: Action brought on 26 June 2012 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/6

         Action brought on 26 June 2012 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-305/12)
   2012/C 273/10
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, D. Düsterhaus and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Forms of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to bring its domestic law into conformity with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Slovak Republic, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to notify such measures of EUR 17 136 per day as from the delivery date of the judgment in this case;

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The prescribed period for transposition of the directive expired on 12 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3.


title: Case C-342/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2014  — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2014 — X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord
   (Case C-342/14)
   2014/C 372/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X-Steuerberatungsgesellschaft

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 5 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) preclude a restriction of the freedom to provide services in a case where a tax consultancy company formed in accordance with the law of a Member State prepares in the Member State of its establishment, where tax consultancy work is not regulated, a tax return for a recipient of services in another Member State and sends it to the tax authority, and national provisions in that other Member State require that a tax consultancy company be recognised as authorised to provide professional assistance in tax matters and that the tax advisers managing the company must act autonomously?

               2.

               Can a tax consultancy company, in the circumstances referred to in question 1, rely successfully on Article 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2), irrespective of which of the two Member States is the one in which it provides the service?

               3.

               Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a restriction, by measures applicable in the Member State of the recipient of services, of the freedom to provide services in the circumstances referred to in question 1, if the tax consultancy company is not established in the Member State of the recipient of the services?

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.

      (2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.


title: Case C-221/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2013 — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2013 — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Case C-221/13)
   2013/C 207/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Teresa Mascellani

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Questions referred

               1.

               In so far as it provides that ‘[t]he refusal by a worker to be transferred from full-time to part-time work or vice-versa should not in itself constitute a valid reason for termination of employment, without prejudice to the possibility, under national laws, collective agreements and practice, of termination for other reasons such as may arise from the operational requirements of the establishment concerned’, must Clause 5.2 of the Agreement implemented by Directive 97/81/EC (1) be construed as meaning that provision may not be made in the legislation of Member States for employers to be able to convert a part-time employment relationship into a full-time relationship even where the employee does not consent?

               2.

               Does Directive 97/81/EC preclude a provision of national law (such as Article 16 of Italian Law No 183 of 4 November 2010) under which employers may convert a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship even where the employee does not consent?

      (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).


title: Case T-580/08: Action brought on 24 December 2008 — PJ Hungary/OHIM v Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/66

         Action brought on 24 December 2008 — PJ Hungary/OHIM v Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO)
   (Case T-580/08)
   (2009/C 44/112)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: PJ Hungary Szolgáltató (PJ Hungary kft), (Budapest, Republic of Hungary) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and C. Gutiérrez Martínez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pepekillo SL (Algeciras, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 30 April 2008 (Case R-722/2007) of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which granted the restitutio in integrum claimed by PEPEKILLO SL;

               —

               Annul the decision of 24 September 2008 (Case R-722/2007) of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which set aside the decision of the Opposition Division of 9 March 2007 and, as a result, granted Community trade mark No 3 546 471 ‘PEPEQUILLO’, and make such other order as is appropriate in accordance with Community law; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, in addition to the costs incurred during the administrative procedure before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Marta Sancho Lora, who subsequently assigned the application to the company PEPEKILLO SL.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PEPEQUILLO’ (Application No 3.546.471) for goods in classes 18 and 25 and services in class 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant, to whom the company ‘PEPE JEANS N.V.’ had assigned its rights.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘PEPE’ and ‘PEPE JEANS’, Spanish figurative marks ‘PEPE JEANS LONDON’, Spanish word marks ‘PEPE 2XL’, ‘PEPE F4’, ‘PEPE M99’, ‘PEPE F4’, ‘PEPE M3’, ‘PEPE M5’ and ‘PEPE F6’, Spanish figurative marks ‘PEPE JEANS LONDON’, ‘PEPE JEANS 73’, ‘PEPE JEANS PORTOBELLO’, ‘PEPE’ and Spanish word marks ‘PEPE JEANS M2’, ‘PEPE BETTY’, ‘PEPE CLOTHING’ and ‘PEPECO’, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25; and Community word and figurative marks ‘PEPE JEANS’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14 and 18.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Pleas in law admitted and appeal upheld.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Articles 78 and 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-1/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/29

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2008 — Buczek Automotive v Commission
   (Case T-1/08 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure)
   (2008/C 92/60)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Buczek Automotive sp, z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: T. Gackowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 concerning State aid No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Suspends, until the adoption of the order concluding the present application for interim measures, the operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 concerning State aid No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek, insofar as that decision concerns Buczek Automotive sp, z o.o.

               2.

               Reserves the costs.


title: Case C-491/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP v Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/10

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP v Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda
      (Case C-491/16)
      (2016/C 441/13)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas IP

         Defendant: Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must the Operational Programme for Rural Development, (‘the AGRO Programme’) be considered a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999 (repealed by Article 107 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (2) of 11 July 2006, without prejudice to Article 105(1) thereof)?

                  2.

                  Must the AGRO Programme be considered a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (3) of 18 December 1995, according to which ‘in the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated’?

                  3.

                  In the event that the AGRO Programme is considered a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95:

                              —

                              Is the limitation period for the administrative measures conducted pursuant to that programme subject to expiry after 4 years, as set out in Article 3(1)?

                              —

                              If the limitation period of 4 years ends before the termination of the programme, does this result in expiry, or

                              —

                              In view of the provision in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, is the dies ad quem of the limitation period extended, so that it coincides with the date when the ‘[multiannual] programme is definitively terminated’?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

         (3)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case T-112/11: Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v Commission

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/29

         Action brought on 23 February 2011 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v Commission
   (Case T-112/11)
   2011/C 145/49
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)];

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the necessary costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the division of powers

                           —

                           By its first plea the applicant alleges infringement of the division of powers under Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1) as no national procedure was initiated in respect of the protected geographical indication ‘Edam Holland’ registered by means of the contested regulation.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the original application applied for registration of the term ‘Hollandse Edam’ and that the national preliminary procedure which is a necessary requirement pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 510/2006 took place only in respect of that name.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 (2)

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that ‘Edam Holland’ is not a Dutch expression.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1898/2006

                           —

                           In the context of the third plea the applicant submits that the registered name is not used.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           The applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 as ‘Edam Holland’ is not a ‘traditional’ non-geographical name.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           In the context of the fifth plea the applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 510/2006 as ‘Edam Holland’ does not have any specific characteristics or a reputation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 30 and 36 TFEU

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that the contested regulation unjustifiably restricts the freedom of movement of goods on the basis that the milk from dairy farmers who are resident in the Netherlands, which is the only milk authorised in respect of ‘Edam Holland’, has no special characteristics.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits in particular that there is infringement of Article 2(2), in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 510/2006, as ‘Holland’ as a synonym for ‘Netherlands’ is the name of a country. Furthermore, there is no exceptional case, which is required in respect of the registration of names of countries.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 510/2006

                           —

                           By this plea the applicant submits that, in view of the earlier registration ‘Noord-Hollandse Edammer g.U.’, the registration of ‘Edam Holland’ took place without due regard being had to bona fide and local usage and gives rise to a danger of consumers being misled.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of procedural principles, and an error of assessment

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant submits that the defendant did not make it clear in the contested regulation, that the indication ‘Edam’ is generic. The applicant takes the view that such a clarification was possible according to the case-law of the Court and the practice of the Commission and was, in view of the facts and circumstances, necessary. Its absence infringes the principle of proportionality and procedural principles and constitutes an error of assessment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 369, p. 1).


title: Case C-573/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA
   (Case C-573/15)
   (2016/C 038/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: État belge

      Respondent: Oxycure Belgium SA

      Question referred

   Does Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Annex III, points 3 et 4 of the VAT Directive, having regard to, in particular, the principle of neutrality, preclude a national provision which prescribes a reduced rate of VAT for oxygen treatment by means of oxygen cylinders, whereas oxygen treatment by means of an oxygen concentrator is subject to the standard rate of VAT?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-463/04: Action brought on 2 December 2004 by Danish Management A/S against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/46

         Action brought on 2 December 2004 by Danish Management A/S against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-463/04)
   (2005/C 6/90)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 December 2004 by Danish Management A/S, Viby J, Denmark, represented by C. Kennedy-Loest and C. Thomas, Solicitors.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decisions of 18 November 2004 and 30 November 2004 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tender procedure service contract for a monitoring system of the implementation of projects and programmes of external co-operation financed by the European Community — lot 2: ACP, South Africa and Cuba — EuropeAid 119453/C/SV/Multi;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submitted a tender for a service contract for a monitoring system of the implementation of projects and programmes of external co-operation financed by the European Community — lot no. 2 covering ACP, South Africa and Cuba, which was published the 26 May 2004 (1).
   The Commission rejected the tender by decision of 18 November 2004 on the grounds that there was a discrepancy between the applicants financial offer and technical offer as to the number of man/days required. The Commission upheld its decision by letter of 30 November 2004.
   The applicant submits that the Commission's decision is based on an error of fact since, according to the applicant, there was no such discrepancy between the two parts of the companies tender.
   The applicant further alleges that the Commission ought to have sought to clarify the alleged disrepancy and that in not having done so before rejecting the applicants tender the Commission has taken a disproportionate action and failed to exercise due diligence, whereby it infringed its duty of care.

      (1)  OJ S 102-081573.


title: Case T-517/14: Action brought on 7 July 2014 — Pelikan v OHIM — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (be.bag)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/26

         Action brought on 7 July 2014 — Pelikan v OHIM — Hachette Filipacchi Presse (be.bag)
   (Case T-517/14)
   (2014/C 448/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hachette Filipacchi Presse SA (Levallois Perret, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: The word mark ‘be.bag’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1192/2013-1

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2014 in Case R 1192/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in part;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-206/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 2004/25/EC — Takeover bids — Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) — Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and according to clearly determined circumstances and criteria — National law providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-206/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and according to clearly determined circumstances and criteria - National law providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers))
   (2017/C 300/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Camfin SpA

      Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Intervenening parties: Camfin SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, Marco Tronchetti Provera & C. SpA, UniCredit SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which enables a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, provided that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that law, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-307/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2006 — Fermont v Commission (Preliminary issues — Objection of inadmissibility — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/58

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 2006 — Fermont v Commission
   (Case T-307/05) (1)

   (Preliminary issues - Objection of inadmissibility - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 326/125)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alain Fermont (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Kakiese and N. Luzeyemo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and F. Dintilhac, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.