title: Action brought on 4 March 1997 by TAT European Airlines against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-49/97)

text:
 10 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 142/23
Commission's position fails to take account of the binding           concerned the unlawful appointment by the Parliament on
authority of the judgment of 27 February 1992, Articles 18           3 July 1989, with effect from 1 June 1989, and its
and 19 of the Insurance Rules and the principle of good              subsequent re-appointment, of another official to the post
management. Having regard to everything on the file, its             of Language Adviser in the Danish Translation Division,
position also constitutes a misuse of powers. Since                  despite the fact that the applicant fulfilled all the necessary
27 February 1992, the Commission has systematically                  conditions and had been proposed for appointment to the
been acting in disregard of the applicant's rights and               post .
contrary to the Insurance Rules, as it had before that date .
The Commission could not legitimately instruct a new                 The applicant complains that the Parliament failed
expert for the purpose of the decision under Article 19 of           correctly to comply with the judgments delivered by the
the Insurance Regulations . In addition the pre-litigation           Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, that it
procedure was not adhered to since the Commission made               disregarded the consequences of those judgments, and that
its decision on the complaint without convening the                  it refused to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its conduct,
Interdepartmental Group.                                             in that it persisted in such unlawful acts .
As regards the application for damages, the applicant                The Parliament's conduct has adversely affected the career
contends that the persistently unlawful behaviour of the             progress of the applicant, who is seeking, on a provisional
Commission over 13 years, since the application made on              basis, compensation for the material damage suffered in
24 January 1984, or at the very least over five years, since         the sum of Bfrs 6 000 000, corresponding to the difference
the judgment of 27 February 1992, has had a detrimental              in his salary and related allowances over the period from
effect on his physical and psychological health.                     1 June 1989 until the date of the applicant's retirement.
                                                                     Moreover, the applicant has suffered considerable non
                                                                     material damage, estimated in the sum of Bfrs 5 000 000,
                                                                     because the Parliament's conduct has seriously affected his
                                                                     health,    in  that   he     has   contracted  three   illnesses
Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen               acknowledged by the appointing authority as being serious
                against the European Parliament                      illnesses within the meaning of Article 72 ( 1 ) of the Staff
                         ( Case T-48/97 )                            Regulations .
                           ( 97/C 142/47
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                Action brought on 4 March 1997 by TAT European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Airlines against the Commission of the European
Communities on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen,                                            Communities
residing at Howald ( Luxembourg ), represented by Georges                                    ( Case T-49/97)
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( 97/C 142/48 )
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— award the applicant, on a provisional basis,                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
      compensation for the material damage suffered in the           Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 1997
      estimated sum of Bfrs 6 000 000,                               by TAT European Airlines, established at Tours ( France ),
                                                                     represented by Romano Subiotto, of the Law Society of
                                                                     England and Wales, and Nicholas Levy, of the Bar of
— award the applicant compensation for the non                      England and Wales, with an address for service in
      material damage suffered, estimated on an equitable            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15
      basis to amount to the sum of Bfrs 5 000 000,                  Cote d'Eich .
— order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  — annul the contested communication pursuant to
                                                                          Article 173 of the Treaty, primarily on account of
The applicant has previously brought a number of actions                  infringement of essential procedural requirements and,
against the European Parliament ( for example, Case                       in the alternative, by reason of manifest errors of
                                                                          assessment,
T-169/89, reported at [ 1991 ] ECR 11-1403 , and Case
T-106/92 , reported at [ 1995] ECR SC 11-99, an abstract of
which appears at [ 1995] ECR-SC I-A-29 ), all of which               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/24          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that, by authorizing payment of               ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
the third tranche of aid to Air France, the Commission                      applicant the sum of Fl 385 583 , together with interest
disregarded Articles 92 ( 3 ) and 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Treaty and undermined the coherence of the procedures                       1992 until the date of payment in full;
for monitoring State aid and anti-competitive practices in
the common market. In the applicant's view, the
                                                                            in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
communication is vitiated by errors of form, of law and of
                                                                            applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
fact, and should consequently be annulled under
                                                                            think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 172 213
Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                            ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
According to the applicant, the communication is void,                      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
since it infringes essential procedural requirements by                     1992 until the date of the payment in full;
authorizing payment of the third tranche of the aid
without any prior examination of its compatibility with
                                                                      ( b) order the Community to pay the costs .
the common market in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In addition, the applicant considers that the
communication is void by reason of infringement of                    The applicant, a SLOM producer, is seeking compensation
essential procedural requirements, since it authorizes                pursuant to Article 178 in conjunction with the second
payment of the third tranche of the aid prior to the                  paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the damage
outcome of the proceeding initiated under Regulation                  suffered by him as a result of the fact that, following the
No 17 of the Council implementing Articles 85 and 86 of               expiry of his SLOM undertaking, he has been unable, by
the Treaty as regards the measures taken for the                      reason of the absence of a reference quantity, to resume
renovation of Orly airport by Aeroports de Paris, a                   milk production .
publicly-owned industrial and commercial institution
placed under the authority of the Minister for Civil
Aviation .
Lastly, the applicant considers that the communication is
vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and that it                 Action brought on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer against
infringes Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty, since it holds      the Council of the European Union and the Commission
that the failures established with regard to fulfilment of                              of the European Communities
condition No 16 are minor and do not undermine the
                                                                                ( Case T-51 /97 )
compatibility of the aid with the common market, and
that the undertakings given by the French authorities are                                         ( 97/C 142/50 )
enough to remedy the distortions of competition caused by
the non-observance of that condition .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer, of
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda against                  Usquert (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
the Council of the European Union and the Commission                  Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
               of the European Communities                            of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                        ( Case T-50/97 )                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                      Guillaume .
                          ( 97/C 142/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Council of the European Union and               ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
the Commission of the European Communities was                              applicant the sum of Fl 139 382, together with interest
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda , of                              1992 until the date of payment in full;
Franeker (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                  . in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                            applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                         think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 58 022
Guillaume .                                                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of


title: Case T-77/09: Action brought on 17 February 2009 — hofherr communikation v OHIM (NATURE WATCH)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/34

         Action brought on 17 February 2009 — hofherr communikation v OHIM (NATURE WATCH)
   (Case T-77/09)
   2009/C 90/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: hofherr communikation GmbH (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by S. Warbek, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 December 2008 in case R 1410/2008-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “NATURE WATCH” for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 43 — international registration No WOO 957 541

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register the mark applied for as a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the trade mark applied for is a descriptive one and, furthermore, that the trade mark applied for lacks distinctive character.


title: Cases C-266/04, C-267/04, C-268/04, C-269/04, C-270/04: References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne by judgments of that Tribunal of 5 April 2004 in the following cases: SAS Nazairdis against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, JACELI SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, KOMOGO SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, Tout pour la maison SARL against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, SAS Distribution Casino France against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/22

         References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne by judgments of that Tribunal of 5 April 2004 in the following cases: SAS Nazairdis against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, JACELI SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, KOMOGO SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, Tout pour la maison SARL against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC, SAS Distribution Casino France against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC
   (Cases C-266/04, C-267/04, C-268/04, C-269/04, C-270/04)
   (2004/C 228/44)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne (Saint-Etienne Social Security Tribunal) (France) of 5 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 24 June 2004 and 25 June 2004 (Case C-270/04), for a preliminary ruling in the following cases:

               —

               SAS Nazairdis against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-266/04)

               —

               Jaceli SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-267/04)

               —

               Komogo SA against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-268/04)

               —

               Tout pour la maison SARL against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-269/04)

               —

               SAS Distribution Casino France against Caisse Nationale de l'Organisation Autonome d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Non-Salariés des Professions Industrielles et Commerciales — Caisse ORGANIC (Case C-270/04).

         The Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Etienne asks the Court of Justice of the European Communities to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
   Should Article 87 EC be interpreted as meaning that State funding by France through the Comité Professionnel de la Distribution des Carburants (Fuel Distributors' Trade Committee) (‘the CPDC’) and through the Fonds d'Intervention pour la Sauvegarde de l'Artisanat et du Commerce (Intervention Fund for the Support of Crafts and Trade) (‘the FISAC’) by way of assistance when self-employed craftsmen and traders retire and grants made to the old-age insurance scheme for self-employed persons in manufacturing and trading occupations, and to the scheme for self-employed persons in the craft sector constitute State aid?


title: Case C-516/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 178(a) — Right of deduction — Conditions of exercise — Article 226(6) and (7) — Details required in invoices — Extent and nature of the services rendered — Date on which the supply of services is made)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-516/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 178(a) - Right of deduction - Conditions of exercise - Article 226(6) and (7) - Details required in invoices - Extent and nature of the services rendered - Date on which the supply of services is made))
   (2016/C 419/06)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Barlis 06 — Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered from [a date] until the present date’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not a priori comply with the requirements of point 6 of that article and that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered until the present date’ do not a priori comply either with the requirements of point 6 or with those of point 7 of that article, which is, however, for the referring tribunal to ascertain.
   Article 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct value added tax solely because the taxable person holds an invoice which does not satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(6) and (7) of that directive, even though those authorities have available all the necessary information for ascertaining whether the substantive conditions for the exercise of that right are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-50/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Jules Simon & Cie against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 131/19
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Jules                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Simon & Cie against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                          —     annul the contested decision no. R0612/1999-2,
                          (Case T-50/02)
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 131/36)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie
Jules Simon & Cie, established at Wiltz (Luxembourg), rep-                Applicant for the Com-        Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood (also
resented by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jerry Mosar, lawyers.                munity trade mark:            trading as Kenwood Corporation)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Community trade           The word mark ‘DualMags’ for
                                                                          mark concerned:               goods in classes 9, 37 and 38.
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 5 Decem-
      ber 2001 in Case COMP/37800/F3 — Brasseries Luxem-                  Proprietor of the right to    Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft
      bourgeoises, in so far as it finds that the applicant has           the trade mark or sign
      infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty;                              asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                          sition in the opposition
—     in any event, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it       proceedings:
      imposes a fine on the applicant, or alternatively reduce
      that fine substantially;
                                                                          Trade mark or sign            The national German word mark
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              asserted by way of oppo-      ‘Dual’ for certain goods in class 9.
                                                                          sition in the opposition
                                                                          proceedings:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Partial rejection of the Com-
                                                                          sition Division:              munity trade mark application
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put                                            because of likelihood of confusion
forward in Case T-49/02.                                                                                for certain goods in class 9.
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal by the
                                                                          Appeal:                       applicant for the Community tra-
                                                                                de mark.
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Kabushiki Kaisha
Kenwood against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       Grounds of claim:             Violation of Article 8.1 (b) of
                         Internal Market                                                                Council Regulation 40/94 (1) since
                                                                                there is no risk of confusion.
                                                                                According to the applicant, the
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of                                                  word ‘dual’ should be considered
       Appeal was Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft                                                    as a descriptive complement to the
                                                                                distinctive trade mark ‘Mags’. The
                          (Case T-58/02)                                                                opposing mark should further be
                                                                                considered as a weak trade mark
                         (2002/C 131/37)                                                                due to its descriptive nature and
                                                                                the word ‘dual’ is a common
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                      element in several trade marks.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).
European Communities on 25 February 2002 by Kabushiki
Kaisha Kenwood, represented by Mr Emiliano Garayar Gutiér-
rez, Mr Joaquı́n Garcı́a-Romanillos Valverde and Ms Anna
Garcı́a Castillo of Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, Brussels (Belgium).


title: Case C-4/03: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG (GAT) v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG (LuK) (Brussels Convention — Article 16(4) — Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents — Exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the place of deposit or registration — Declaratory action to establish no infringement — Question of the patent's validity raised indirectly)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/1

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG (GAT) v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG (LuK)
   (Case C-4/03) (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Article 16(4) - Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents - Exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the place of deposit or registration - Declaratory action to establish no infringement - Question of the patent's validity raised indirectly)
   (2006/C 224/01)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG (GAT)

      Defendant: Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG (LuK)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Brussels Convention — Exclusive jurisdiction ‘in proceedings concerned with the … validity of patents’ — Whether that covers a declaratory action to establish that a patent has (or has not) been infringed, in the course of which one party pleads that the patent is invalid
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   Article 16(4) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as last amended by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 8.3.2003.


title: Case C-256/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2013 — Provincie Antwerpen v Belgacom NV van publiek recht

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2013 — Provincie Antwerpen v Belgacom NV van publiek recht
   (Case C-256/13)
   2013/C 207/42
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Provincie Antwerpen

      Respondent: Belgacom NV van publiek recht

      Question referred

   Must Article 6 and/or Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted as precluding a public authority of a Member State from being allowed to tax, for budgetary or other reasons, the economic activity of telecommunications operators which arises in the territory or a part thereof through the presence on public or private property of GSM masts, pylons or antennae which are used for that activity?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case C-237/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Ge.A.P. Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/22

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Ge.A.P. Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-237/13 P)
   2013/C 207/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Ge.A.P. Srl (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-35/12: Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/29

         Action brought on 16 January 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission
   (Case T-35/12)
   2012/C 73/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Icelandic Group UK Ltd (Grimsby, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Sloane, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) of Commission Decision C(2011) 8113 FINAL of 15.11.2011 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (rem 04/2010); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and Article 906a of Commission Regulation 2454/93/EEC (1), as the defendant failed to observe applicant’s rights of defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of Article 1(2) of the contested decision, by adopting a decision adversely affecting the rights of the applicant without giving it the right to be heard on the basis for that unfavourable decision, namely the defendant’s assessment that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and breach of Article 220(2)(b), Article 236 and/or Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), as:

                           —

                           The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty under Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met in the present circumstances. The assessment of the defendant that the United Kingdom authorities had not committed an error as regards imports made from 1 December 2006 to 24 July 2007 is manifestly wrong;

                           —

                           Further or alternatively, the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in deciding that the conditions for repayment of customs duty in Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 were not met. The defendant’s assessment that the circumstances of the present case do not disclose a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 was manifestly wrong.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1)


title: Case T-338/11: Action brought on 30 June 2011 — Getty Images v OHIM (PHOTOS.COM)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/39

         Action brought on 30 June 2011 — Getty Images v OHIM (PHOTOS.COM)
   (Case T-338/11)
   2011/C 252/87
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Getty Images (US), Inc. (Seattle, United States) (represented by: P.G. Olson, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2011 in case R 1831/2010-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PHOTOS.COM’ for goods and services in classes 9, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8549991

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly found that the mark applied for describes the goods/services for which registration was sought; (ii) erred by disregarding the fact that the applicant’s domain name registration corresponds to the mark applied for and has an effect on the assessment of the mark’s distinctive character; and (iii) wrongly assessed that the documentation was insufficient to document that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and based its decision on misunderstanding and misconception of the evidence presented. Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectation, as the Board of Appeal wrongly rejected the importance of the fact that OHIM has accepted the applicant’s trademark ‘PHOTOS.COM’ for similar goods and services in a prior application.


title: Case T-241/06: Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Reitz and von Gadomski v OHIM (CMD-CLINIC)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/25

         Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Reitz and von Gadomski v OHIM (CMD-CLINIC)
   (Case T-241/06)
   (2006/C 261/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicants: J. Reitz (Aumühle, Germany) and B. von Gadomski (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Poser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 July 2006 (R0372/2006-4);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CMD-CLINIC’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 5, 10 and 44 (Application No 3 661 337).

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The contested decision is unlawful inasmuch as registration was wrongly refused pursuant to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on the basis that the mark applied for is descriptive and pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) thereof on the ground that it lacks distinctiveness.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-422/02 P: Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Anti-dumping measures — Regulation terminating anti-dumping proceedings — Retroactivity — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination — Imports of certain large aluminium electrolytic capacitors from Japan)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-422/02 P: Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Anti-dumping measures - Regulation terminating anti-dumping proceedings - Retroactivity - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination - Imports of certain large aluminium electrolytic capacitors from Japan)
   (2005/C 82/01)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-422/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 21 November 2002, Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH, established in Nuremberg (Germany), (Lawyers: K. Adamantopoulos, J. Branton, and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) the other parties to the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Scharf and S. Meany) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings.

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2004 in Case T-49/03: Gunda Schumann v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Preselection tests — Neutralisation of a multiple-choice question — Principle of proportionality — Breach of the competition notice)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 October 2004
   in Case T-49/03: Gunda Schumann v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Preselection tests - Neutralisation of a multiple-choice question - Principle of proportionality - Breach of the competition notice)
   (2004/C 314/48)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-49/03: Gunda Schumann, residing in Berlin (Germany), represented by Y. Block, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in open competition COM/A/11/01 not to admit the applicant to the tests following the preselection tests, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible in that it seeks annulment of the decision of 19 July 2002;

               2.

               Dismisses the application as unfounded in that it seeks annulment of the decision of 4 June 2002;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
11.4.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of                Designation of a President of Chambers and assignment of
            Justice of the European Communities                        Judges to Chambers of the Court of First Instance
                         (98/C 113/01)                                                   (98/C 113/04)
Following his appointment as Advocate-General at the              At its plenary meeting of 10 March 1998, the Court of
Court of Justice of the European Communities by                   First Instance, following the departure from office of
Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the         President A. Saggio and the entry into office of Judge P.
Member States of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Antonio                 Mengozzi, decided as follows:
Saggio took the oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  For the period from 10 March 1998, President B.
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                  Vesterdorf shall preside over the First Chamber and the
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition, and Mr Mengozzi,
                                                                  Judge, is assigned to the First Chamber, the First Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition.
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of First
                                                                  Accordingly, the composition of the Chambers decided
           Instance of the European Communities
                                                                  upon on 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 14) shall be
                         (98/C 113/02)                            amended as follows:
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of First          First Chamber
Instance of the European Communities by Decision of the
representatives of the Governments of the Member States           Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr
of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Paolo Mengozzi took the               Mengozzi, Judges;
oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 25.
                                                                  Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Bellamy, Mr Moura Ramos,
                                                                  Mr Pirrung and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                  Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
Election of the President of the Court of First Instance of
                  the European Communities                        Mr Azizi, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                         (98/C 113/03)                            Mr Moura Ramos, Mr Jaeger and Mr Mengozzi, Judges.
At the meeting on 4 March 1998, the Judges of the Court           For cases in which the written procedure was completed
of First Instance of the European Communities elected, in         and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed
accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr           before 10 March 1998 by those Chambers in their
B. Vesterdorf as President of the Court of First Instance         previous composition, but without President Saggio, they
for the period from 4 March 1998 up to 31 August 1998.            shall continue to sit with that composition.


title: Case C-588/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2016 by Generics (UK) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-469/13: Generics (UK) v Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/23

         Appeal brought on 18 November 2016 by Generics (UK) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-469/13: Generics (UK) v Commission
   (Case C-588/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Generics (UK) Ltd (represented by: I. Vandenborre, advocaat, T. Goetz, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment or take such other action as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First plea-in-law. The Court has failed to demonstrate that the Settlement Agreements constitute infringements ‘by object’, within the meaning of the Cartes Bancaires judgment. In particular, the Court does not explain how the Settlement Agreements reveal in themselves a sufficient degree of harm to competition without the need to assess their actual and potential effects. Instead, the Court expresses doubt and uncertainty in relation to critical points of the analysis of the Settlement Agreements.

               2.

                  Second plea-in-law. The evidence supporting the Court's findings does not meet the requirement of accurate, reliable, consistent and comprehensive evidence, which this Court has identified as necessary to meet the burden of proving a ‘by object’ infringement.

               3.

                  Third plea-in-law. The Court reverses the burden of proof when it imposes a requirement on Generics (UK) to demonstrate that litigation certainly would have ensued in case of a launch at risk, and that Generics (UK) would certainly have lost in litigation, to support the legality of the Settlement Agreements.

               4.

                  Fourth plea-in-law. The Court failed to exercise a full review of the rejection of the applicability of Article 101(3) TFEU by the Commission.

               5.

                  Fifth plea-in-law. The Court erred in law by applying its powers of judicial review ultra vires in establishing a new infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU that was not formulated in the Decision and substituting its own findings for those of the Commission.

               6.

                  Sixth plea-in-law. The Court failed to identify clear, precise and consistent evidence to support a finding that Generics (UK) committed the alleged infringement intentionally or negligently as required pursuant to Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty.

      (1)  OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1.


title: Case C-293/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/83/EC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-293/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2009/C 82/15)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-422/06: Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2007 — Commission of European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 June 2007 — Commission of European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-422/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/56)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-320/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/71

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)
   (Case T-320/06)
   (2006/C 326/147)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca Lda (Santo Tirso, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Óptica SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 notified to the applicant 27 September 2006, in cancellation proceedings No 829C (Case No R 946/2005-1) and consequently declare Community trade mark No 2 436 723‘GENERAL OPTICA’ filed on 5 November 2001 and registered on 31 January 2003, as invalid, or in the alternative, revoked;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘GENERAL OPTICA’ for services in class 42 (Opticians' services) — Community trade mark No 2 436 723

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: General Óptica SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national trade name ‘Generalóptica’ for import and retail sale of optical, precision and photographic apparatus

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of among others Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the two signs and the applicant's sign is granted national protection.
   Infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as OHIM omitted its duty to ask the applicant to present evidence of the earlier use invoked.


title: Case C-497/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.
   (Case C-497/08)
   2009/C 113/38
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Charlottenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amiraike Berlin GmbH

      Other party: Aero Campus Cottbus Ltd

      Question referred

   Are the provisions of primary Community law, in particular, Articles 10 EC, 43 EC and 48 EC and the principle according to which Member States as between each other must accord mutual recognition to their respective legal orders to be interpreted as meaning that in ratifying Community law a Member State (‘the first Member State’) has indicated, in principle, its acceptance of the effects on its national territory of expropriatory measures imposed under the legal order of a second Member State, at any rate, where the company (created as a matter of private law) affected by the expropriatory measure previously elected on an intentional basis — exercising its Community right to freedom of establishment — to submit itself to the company law regime of the second Member State, responsible for imposing the expropriation, notwithstanding the fact that it exercises its business activities in the first Member State and holds company assets affected by the expropriatory measure situated in that State?


title: Case T-266/03: Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the "CB" Bank Cards Group against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 251/12              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            18.10.2003
Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’ Bank Cards                   disproportionate, since the Commission's investigation of the
Group against the Commission of the European                            notification by the Group was still in progress and there has
                          Communities                                   been a long and constant tradition of cooperation by the
                                                                        Group with the Commission's services.
                        (Case T-266/03)
                        (2003/C 251/24)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (1) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,
An action against the Commission of the European                            English Special Edition, 1959-1962, p. 87).
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’
Bank Cards Group, whose registered office is in Paris, repre-
sented by Alain Georges and Javier Ruiz Calzado, lawyers.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite
                                                                        Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-269/03)
—     annul the Commission's Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of                                           (2003/C 251/25)
      7 May 2003, ordering the CB Bank Cards Group and
      its subsidiaries to submit to an investigation under                                  (Language of the case: German)
      Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 (1);
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
—     order the removal from the file of all documents seized           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
      and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the                of the European Communities on 30 July 2003 by Socratec —
      Commission during the investigation, and their return             Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-
      to the Group;                                                     GmbH, Regensburg (Germany), represented by M. Adolf and
                                                                        M. Lüken, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
      the Group in connection with the present action for               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      annulment.
                                                                        —      annul the Commission's Decision of 30 April 2003 (Case
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                COMP/M.2903);
In support of its action, the applicant pleads, first, infringe-        —      in the alternative, annul the Commission's Decision of
ment of the duty to state reasons for the contested decision. As               30 April 2003 (Case COMP/M.2903) in so far as the
the Commission failed to state the presumptions it wished to                   decision allows the participating undertakings
verify, the applicant found itself unable to grasp the scope of                DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and
its duty of cooperation while at the same time preserving its                  Cofiroute SA to provide telematic services by means of
defence rights. It was also unable to discover whether the                     the toll system commissioned by the Federal Republic of
investigation ordered concerned certain measures already                       Germany;
notified to the Commission or other practices. The applicant
also makes a second plea, alleging infringement of the
principle of proportionality. It first argues that the infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons, alleged in its first plea, has
prevented either the competent national authorities or the              —      in the further alternative, order the Commission to
Court of First Instance itself from reviewing the proportional-                require DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom
ity of the investigation ordered. In the alternative, it argues                AG and Cofiroute SA to postpone completion of the
that recourse to an investigation under Article 14(3) is                       notified joint venture Toll Collect GmbH until the condi-


title: Case C-179/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft. (References for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5(1) — Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet — Unauthorised use of the mark — Advertisements published online without the knowledge and without the consent of that third party or maintained online despite the opposition of that third party — Action of the trade mark proprietor against that third party)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.
   (Case C-179/15) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) - Advertisements relating to a third party accessible on the internet - Unauthorised use of the mark - Advertisements published online without the knowledge and without the consent of that third party or maintained online despite the opposition of that third party - Action of the trade mark proprietor against that third party))
   (2016/C 156/27)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daimler AG

      Defendant: Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a third party, who is named in an advertisement on a website, which contains a sign identical or similar to a trade mark in such a way as to give the impression that there is a commercial relationship between him and the proprietor of the trade mark, does not make use of that sign that may be prohibited by that proprietor under that provision, where that advertisement has not been placed by that third party or on his behalf or, if that advertisement has been placed by that third party or on his behalf with the consent of the proprietor, where that third party has expressly requested the operator of that website, from whom the third party ordered the advertisement, to remove the advertisement or the reference to the mark contained therein.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Case T-160/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014  — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MARINE BLEU — Earlier Community word mark BLUMARINE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
   (Case T-160/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MARINE BLEU - Earlier Community word mark BLUMARINE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 202/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2012 (case R 1955/2010-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Blufin SpA and Adler Modemärkte AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Adler Modemärkte AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               3.

               orders Blufin SpA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case F-126/12: Action brought on 26 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/29

         Action brought on 26 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-126/12)
   2013/C 71/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Boury, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application to annul the response to the complaint by which the applicant sought, firstly, the acknowledgement by the Commission that only certain documents in his personal administrative file may be transferred to the pre-trial judge at the Court of First Instance of Brussels, and, secondly, the finding of unlawfulness of the concealment from that Court of the decision of 2 February 2001.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority’s response of 24 August 2012 to complaint No R/367/12;

               —

               acknowledge the unlawfulness of the concealment from the Belgian courts of his genuine administrative personal file, and of the Appointing Authority’s decision of 2 February 2001 and of all the documents relating to it, documents which were demanded from the Commission by the Belgian criminal courts;

               —

               acknowledge the unlawfulness of the transfer to the Court of Brussels of confidential documents produced without any legal check, and outside the rules of the Staff Regulations, within the former Unit ADMIN B9 responsible for the administrative investigation opened on 2 February 2001 by the Appointing Authority, in infringement of the rules of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               acknowledge the unlawfulness of the intervention in the investigation of his complaint to the Court of Brussels and with an objective which was detrimental to him by Commission officials who had neither the authority nor the competence to do so;

               —

               acknowledge that throughout that case he, as well as his family, was a victim of serious infringements of his fundamental human rights and that he suffered serious professional, non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage which is reparable only with difficulty and that, therefore, he is entitled to obtain compensation for that damage.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April 1996 in the case of Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne (LTM) v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (FIRS) (Case C-201/96)

text:
No C 233/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
certain sectors is not enough to bring the infringement to an             Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
end, given that the wording of Article 213-1 , which subsists              1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
in the French Code du Travail , simply prohibits night                     1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires de
working for women in industry as a whole .                                Thérapeutique Moderne ( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et
                                                                          de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the
C ) OJ No L 39 , 1976 , p . 40 .                                          following question :
( 2 ) Case C-158/91 Levy [ 1993J ECR 1-4300 .
( 3 ) In response to the letter giving formal notice and the reasoned     Having regard to their composition, presentation and
      opinion, the French Government relied on a communication            purpose, do the products 'Alvityl 50 Dragées ' and
      published on 13 December 1993 in the Official Journal of the
      French Republic, p . 4517 et seq .
                                                                          'Strongenol 20 Ampoules' fall within the scope of
                                                                          subheading 21 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1010/86 of
                                                                          25 March 1986 on the classification of goods or Chapter 30
                                                                          of the Common Customs Tariff ( 1 ) ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht                   t 1 ) OJ No L 94, 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Kôln by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the
interlocutory proceedings between Metronome Musik
            GmbH and Music Point Hokamp GmbH
                           ( Case C-200/96 )
                             ( 96/C 233/09 )                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                          Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    1996       in  the  case    of Laboratoires    Valda   v.   Fonds
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht Kôln                  d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre
( Regional Court, Cologne ) of 18 April 1 996, which was                                                   ( FIRS )
received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1996 , for a                                              ( Case C-202/96 )
preliminary ruling in the interlocutory proceedings between
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp                                                           ( 96/C 233/11 )
GmbH on the following question :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Is the introduction of an exclusive rental right, contrary to             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
the principle of the exhaustion of distribution rights, by                Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of                        1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
19 November 1992 on rental rights and lending rights and                  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of                    Valda v . Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du
intellectual property ( 1 ) compatible with Community law, in             Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the following questions :
particular Community fundamental rights ?
                                                                         — May Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 717/85 of
n OJ No L 346 , 1992 , p . 61 .                                                 19 March 1985 on the classification of goods within
                                                                                subheading 17.04 D I of the common customs tariff ( 1 )
                                                                                be interpreted as referring to goods whose composition
                                                                                ( percentage by weight) is different from that indicated in
                                                                                Article 1 of that Regulation ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April               — If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must
1996 in the case of Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne                       Chapter 30.04 of the customs nomenclature, which
( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du                         refers to medicaments, be interpreted as including a
                      Marché du Sucre ( FIRS )                                  product which contains sugar but above all active
                          ( Case C-201 /96 )                                    flavouring agents having medicinal properties in such a
                             ( 96/C 233/ 10 )                                   proportion that it is used essentially for therapeutic and
                                                                                prophylactic purposes ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal                          (') OJ No L 78 , 21 . 3 . 1985 , p . 13 .


title: Case T-265/99: Action brought on 29 October 1999 by Algemene service- en verkoopmaatschappĳ Arnhemse Poort B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 6/35
Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon                         Action brought on 29 October 1999 by Algemene service-
               against the European Parliament                          en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-261/99)
                                                                                (Case T-265/99)
                           (2000/C 6/63)                                                           (2000/C 6/64)
                  (Language of the Case: French)                                            (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
on 27 October 1999 by Jean Dehon, resident in Hagen,                    European Communities on 29 October 1999 by Algemene
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise             service- en verkoopmaatschappij Arnhemse Poort B.V., of
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an            Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by J.P.A. Greuters, of the
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de          Arnhem Bar.
Gestion Fiduciaire SGF, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
                                                                             of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
— annul the decision of the European Parliament rejecting                    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    his application for the post, at the grade of LA 3, of Deputy            Germany, or at least declare it partially void in so far as the
    Head of the French Translation Division;                                 applicant is classified in the ‘dealer-owned/dealer-operated’
                                                                             category with a clause relating to a system of price controls;
— annul the decision of the European Parliament to appoint              (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
    another candidate to that post;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                        This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
                                                                        failure to comply with the obligation to provide a statement
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of reasons, on account of an essentially incorrect determination
                                                                        of the facts.
In support of his action, the applicant submits that the
European Parliament:                                                    (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— failed to comply with the vacancy notice, Article 45 of the
    Staff Regulations and the principles of career progression
    and of equal treatment, by appointing a candidate who did
    not possess all the qualifications required by the vacancy
    notice;
                                                                        Action brought on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
                                                                        Chr. Kerres B.V. against the Commission of the European
— manifestly erred in its assessment in considering that the
                                                                                Communities
    two candidates for the vacant post were of equivalent
    merit; and
                                                                                (Case T-263/99)
— infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations by not provid-
    ing the applicant with the information to enable him to                                        (2000/C 6/65)
    examine the justification for the contested decision and in
    particular the reason why he was not appointed to the
    post which he had already occupied, to the very great                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
    satisfaction of his line management, on the occasions when
    the Head of Division was absent.                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
                                                                        Chr. Kerres B.V., of Kerkrade (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        W.C.G.J. Sterk, of the Heerlen Bar.


title: Case T-207/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Habanos v OHIM — Tabacos de Centroamérica

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/56

         Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Habanos v OHIM — Tabacos de Centroamérica
   (Case T-207/08)
   (2008/C 209/101)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Corporación Habanos, SA (Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba) (represented by: V. Gil Vega and A. Luiz López, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 31 March 2008, and declare that there is a similarity, and a likelihood of confusion, between the composite mark KIOWA and the earlier composite marks COHIBA, which designate identical profits, and a intent, on the part of the applicant for registration, of undue profit from/detriment to the distinctive character and or the reputation of the earlier COHIBA marks cited, and thus refuse registration of the Community mark No 3.963.931 KIOWA (composite); or, in the alternative, annul the decision of the OHIM referred to, and order that the file be sent back to the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM so that the claims and evidence relating to Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94 be analysed and examined, and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of all instances, including the fees of the applicant's representatives.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘KIOWA’ in respect of goods in Class 34 (application No 3.963.931)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Corporación Habanos, SA, which operates under the business name of Habanos, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘COHIBA’ (Community mark No. 3.323.292), word mark ‘COHIBA’ (Spanish mark No 1.271.173) and the figurative mark ‘COHIBA’ (Spanish mark No 2.052.344) in respect of products in Class 34.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: In particular, a high level of similarity between the opposing marks, resulting in a risk of confusion.


title: Case F-23/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 — M v Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA) (Staff cases — Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Refusal to convene — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 October 2007 — M v Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA)
   (Case F-23/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Refusal to convene - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 22/106)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: M (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Cohen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Agence européenne des médicaments (EMEA) (represented by: V. Salvatore and S. Vanlievendael, agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 rejecting the application brought by the applicant for an Invalidity Committee to be convened — Application for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 35.


title: Joined Cases C-129/05 and C-130/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — the Netherlands) — NV Raverco (C-129/05), Coxon & Chatterton Ltd (C-130/05) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Directive 97/78/EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary checks — Products entering the Community from third countries — Redispatch of products that do not satisfy the import conditions — Seizure and destruction)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — the Netherlands) — NV Raverco (C-129/05), Coxon & Chatterton Ltd (C-130/05) v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Joined Cases C-129/05 and C-130/05) (1)

   (Directive 97/78/EC - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Veterinary checks - Products entering the Community from third countries - Redispatch of products that do not satisfy the import conditions - Seizure and destruction)
   (2006/C 294/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: NV Raverco, Coxon & Chatterton Ltd

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 9) — Interpretation of Council Regulation No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1) — Veterinary checks — Redispatch of products that do not satisfy the import conditions — Seizure and destruction — Protection of the interests of third countries even in the absence of Community interest
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries is to be interpreted as meaning that objection to the redispatch of a consignment that does not satisfy the import conditions must be based on the failure to meet Community requirements.

               2.

               Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78, read in conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, is to be interpreted as meaning that it imperatively requires the competent veterinary authorities to seize and destroy products which, following veterinary inspections carried out pursuant to that directive, are revealed to contain a substance listed in Annex IV to that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.


title: Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Max Labat Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-185/96)

text:
No C 54/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
The applicant observes in that regard that the results in           The applicants claim that the Court should :
the three elections in issue were not falsified, inasmuch as
they reflect the wishes of the electorate . The applicant
would have been elected in any event. Indeed , the                  — annul the decision of the Commission of which they
annulment of election results validly achieved in certain                were notified on 26 September 1996, on the ground
electoral districts by reason of irregularity in the results in          that it contains manifest errors in law and in fact,
other districts would have been permissible only on the
ground of a rule making the validity of the elections
conditional on a minimum proportion of votes being                  — hear and determine the dispute, settling the applicants '
validly cast and requiring a second ballot to be held .                  grievances, and declare that the VAG framework
According to the applicant, the abovementioned provision                 contract fails to meet the eligibility conditions for a
of Annex II to the Staff Regulations provides for a                      block exemption under Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85
minimum proportion of votes to be cast only in elections                 authorizing certain categories of motor vehicle
to the Staff Committee if it is not organized in local                   distribution and servicing agreements, or for an
sections, or to the local section where it is so organized .             individual exemption under Article 85 ( 3 ) of the
Furthermore, that provision requires that a minimum                      Treaty, particularly given the situation of the
proportion of those entitled to vote take part, and not that             Community motor vehicle sector which is marked by
a minimum proportion of votes be validly cast .                          the cumulative effect of a body of similar agreements,
Moreover, before annulling the elections at issue, the              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Commission should, according to the applicant, have
taken account of other overriding factors, such as the
rights of electors who have properly cast their vote and of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
candidates elected on that basis , as well as the basic
principle of the representativity, freedom and secrecy of
the ballot .                                                        By the contested decision of 23 September 1996 , the
                                                                    Commission dismissed the complaint submitted by the
                                                                    applicants alleging that VAG France ( an importer of new
As regards his alternative submissions, concerning the              VW and Audi motor vehicles into France ) infringed
transitional electoral arrangements adopted in March                Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty. According to the
1990 and the partial elections held in November 1996 , the          applicants, that infringement consists in a policy of
applicant pleads infringement of the first, second, third           refusing to sell , conducted in the context of distribution
and fifth paragraphs of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff          agreements between VAG France and its French
Regulations, of Article 7 of the Conditions of Employment           distributors, with the purpose and effect of excluding the
of Other Servants and of the principles of democracy and            applicants from the market for distributing motor vehicles
equality of treatment.                                              of the makes in question . The applicants argue that a
                                                                    distribution system of that nature fails to meet the
                                                                    conditions governing eligibility for a block exemption
                                                                    under Regulation ( FTC ) No 123/85 authorizing certain
                                                                    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
                                                                    agreements , or for an individual exemption under
                                                                    Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Max Labat
Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    The applicants maintain, first, that the contested decision
                       ( Case T-l 85 /96                            is vitiated by errors in both fact and law, and fails to
                          ( 97/C 54/39 )
                                                                    observe the obligations incumbent on the Commission
                                                                    when applying the rules on competition , both in so far as
                                                                    it declares that some of the complaints addressed by the
                (Language of the case: French)                      Commission       itself to  VAG    France   do  not   concern
                                                                    restrictions on competition and in so far as it deliberately
                                                                    glosses over established facts in the file which show that
An action against the Commission of the European                    the restrictions on competition were disregarded for no
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   good reason .
Instance of the European Communities on 22 November
1996 by Max Labat Automobiles 17, represented by
Muriel Amauger, Administrator appointed by the Tribunal             The applicants also argue that, by the contested decision,
de Commerce, Marennes, by judgment of 20 March 1992 ,               the Commission acted unlawfully in attempting to offload
and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso, represented by               its responsibilities for competition matters on to the
Helene Cauzette-Rey, Administrator appointed by the                 national courts on the pretext of lack of Community
Tribunal de Commerce, Nice, by judgment of 10 August                interest and a misinterpretation of the principle of
1989, counsel for the applicants being Christian                    subsidiarity.
Bourgeon , of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Francois Brouxel , 6 rue
Zithe .