title: Joined Cases C-471/09 P to C-473/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-471/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-472/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-473/09 P) v European Commission, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja, Camara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa, and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Appeal — State aid — Action for annulment — Commission Decisions on State aid schemes implemented by Spain for firms in the provinces of Vizcaya, Álava and Guipúzcoa — Tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments — Legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality — Principles of legal certainty and good administration — Action within a reasonable time — Failure to notify)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-471/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-472/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-473/09 P) v European Commission, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja, Camara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa, and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)
   (Joined Cases C-471/09 P to C-473/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Action for annulment - Commission Decisions on State aid schemes implemented by Spain for firms in the provinces of Vizcaya, Álava and Guipúzcoa - Tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments - Legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Principles of legal certainty and good administration - Action within a reasonable time - Failure to notify)
   2011/C 298/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-471/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-472/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-473/09 P) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, agents), Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados), Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja (represented by: J. M. Criado Gámez and E. Martínez Aguirre, abogados), Camara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados), and Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, agent)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth chamber, extended composition) of 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01, T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Gobierno Vasco and Others v Commission whereby the Court of First Instance dismissed, in Cases T-227/01 and T-265/01, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2002/820/EC of 11 July 2001 on State aid schemes implemented by Spain for firms in the province of Álava in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1), in Cases T-228/01 and T-266/01, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on State aid schemes implemented by Spain for firms in the province of Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2003 L 17, p. 1) and, in Cases T-229/01 and T-270/01, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on State aid schemes implemented by Spain for firms in the province of Guipúzcoa in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2002 L 314, p. 26).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeals and the cross-appeals;

               2.

               orders the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, the Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, the Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, the Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava and the Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa to pay in equal shares the costs relating to the appeals;

               3.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37 of 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-434/09: Action brought on 26 October 2009 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/40

         Action brought on 26 October 2009 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM)
   (Case T-434/09)
   2009/C 312/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (Brilon, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co KG (Blaubeuren, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 25 August in Case R 6/2008-4, in so far as the application for a declaration of revocation was upheld;

               —

               order the applicant to pay the costs

               —

               order the possible intervener to pay the costs of the intervention.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark CENTROTHERM for goods and services in Classes 11, 17, 19 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 301 019)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co KG

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revocation of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Cancellation Division and partial revocation of the Community trade mark

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57(5) in conjunction with Article 51(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the defendant did not adequately assess proof of use which was submitted within the time-limit;
   Infringement of the duty to examine the facts of its own motion;
   Infringement of Article 76(1) and (2) and Article 57(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2), since the defendant did not take into consideration the proof of use submitted with the grounds of appeal;
   Incorrect exercise of discretion, since the evidence submitted, even in the event that it was submitted late, is to be taken into consideration;
   In the alternative, inapplicability of Rule 40(5) of Regulation No 2868/95 under Article 241 EC, since this rule infringes Article 76(1) and Article 57(1) in conjunction with Article 51(1) and Article 162(1) of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 202 EC and general principles of Community law, in particular the legal principle of proportionality, the principle of property rights and the right to a fair trial.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-181/11: Action brought on 23 March 2011 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (LIVE WITH CHIVALRY)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/28

         Action brought on 23 March 2011 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (LIVE WITH CHIVALRY)
   (Case T-181/11)
   2011/C 152/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd (Renfrewshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Carboni, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

      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 12 January 2011 in case R 1263/2010-1, and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

               —

               Order the defendant and any intervening parties in this appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant, incurred for these proceedings and those of the appeal procedure before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIVE WITH CHIVALRY’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6616569

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1293610 of the figurative mark ‘CHIVALRY’, for goods in class 33; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2468527 of the figurative mark ‘CHIVALRY SPECIAL RESERVE SCOTCH WHISKY’, for goods in class 33; Non-registered United Kingdom trade mark of the word ‘CHIVALRY’ in respect of ‘Scotch whisky’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(1) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly made a finding of fact as to the characteristics of the relevant public and failed to state the reasons for making the said finding; (ii) in the alternative to ground (i), having found that the relevant consumer is ‘particularly brand-conscious and brand-loyal’, incorrectly failed to appreciate that such characteristics would increase the attentiveness of the relevant consumer and accordingly reduce the likelihood of confusion occurring; (iii) failed to take into account, or took insufficient account of, the different nature and purposes of the marks under consideration; (iv) failed to take into account of important guidance laid down by the Court of Justice and took the wrong approach when comparing the marks; (v) focused undue attention on the presence of the word ‘CHIVALRY’ in the applicant’s mark and ignored the visual differences between the marks; (vi) wrongly assumed that the aural comparison of the marks could be approached in the same way as the visual comparison; (vii) was wrong to limit, or focus, its analysis of the conceptual similarity between the marks to the single word ‘CHIVALRY’ that appeared in each mark; and (viii) incorrectly assessed likelihood of confusion.


2.8.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 184/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-369/02 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-449/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/70)                                                    (2003/C 184/72)
By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 5 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-369/02: Commission of the European               register of Case C-449/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                    Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                         (1) OJ C 31 of 08.02.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-7/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/71)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/73)
By order of 28 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-440/02: Commission of the European               of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v Italian Republic.                                     register of Case C-7/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                    the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Divi-
                                                                    sion): Société de produits Nestlé SA v Unilever plc.
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.


title: Case C-424/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai, Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 3 — Impartiality and independence of national regulatory authorities — Institutional reform — Merger of national regulatory authority with other regulatory authorities — Dismissal of the President and a board member of the merged national regulatory authority before the expiry of their terms of office — Ground for dismissal not provided for under national law)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Xabier Ormaetxea Garai, Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-424/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 3 - Impartiality and independence of national regulatory authorities - Institutional reform - Merger of national regulatory authority with other regulatory authorities - Dismissal of the President and a board member of the merged national regulatory authority before the expiry of their terms of office - Ground for dismissal not provided for under national law))
   (2016/C 475/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Xabier Ormaetxea Garai, Bernardo Lorenzo Almendros

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, is to be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation which entails the merger of a national regulatory authority, within the meaning of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, with other national regulatory authorities, such as the authorities responsible for competition, the postal sector and the energy sector, in order to create a multisectoral regulatory body responsible, inter alia, for the tasks entrusted to national regulatory authorities, within the meaning of that directive, as amended, provided that, in performing those tasks, that body meets the requirements of competence, independence, impartiality and transparency laid down by that directive and that an effective right of appeal is available against its decisions to a body independent of the parties involved, which is a matter to be determined by the national court.

               2.

               Article 3(3a) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, is to be interpreted as precluding — on the sole ground that an institutional reform has taken place involving the merger of a national regulatory authority responsible for ex-ante market regulation or for resolution of disputes between undertakings with other national regulatory authorities in order to create a multisectoral regulatory body responsible, inter alia, for the tasks entrusted to national regulatory authorities, within the meaning of that directive, as amended — the dismissal of the President and a board member, members of the collegiate body running the merged national regulatory authority, before the expiry of their terms of office, in the absence of any rules guaranteeing that such dismissals do not jeopardise the independence and impartiality of such members.

      (1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.


title: Case C-409/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of military equipment)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-409/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of military equipment)
   2010/C 51/06
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga, D. Triantafyllou, H. Støvlbæk and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou, E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent), Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Portuguese Republic (represented by: C. Guerra Santos, L. Inez Fernandes and J. Gomes, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC; Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, in respect of the period after 31 May 2000 Council Regulation (EC; Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Duty-free imports of military equipment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to calculate and to make payment to the European Commission of the own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002, in relation to imports of military material which were exempted from customs duties, and by refusing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the European Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under, respectively, Article 2 and Articles 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, until 31 May 2000, and, after that date, the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-349/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — CG v EUIPO — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark P PRO PLAYER — Earlier EU and national figurative marks P and P PROTECTIVE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — CG v EUIPO — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)
   (Case T-349/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark P PRO PLAYER - Earlier EU and national figurative marks P and P PROTECTIVE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 014/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and M. Fischer, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 2439/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings and CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-111/97)

text:
No C 181 /22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Gregorio Valero                           Commission's decision of 27 December 1996 rejecting
Jordana and Serge Vade against the Commission of the                        the complaint made by the applicant against the
                     European Communities                                    former decision, .
                          ( Case T-l 11 /97)                            — declare that the applicant is entitled to revision of his
                            ( 97/C 181 /45 )                                 initial classification, as requested in his written
                                                                            communication of 30 April 1996,
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                             sum of one ecu by way of damages for the non
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             material damage which it has caused him,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997
by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, and                   — order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses
Serge Vade, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                           arising from these proceedings .
Carlos Amo Quinones, of the Madrid Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the said                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Carlos Amo, 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .                                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Case T-16/97 0 ).
— annul the decision adopted on 27 December 1996                        (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
    by the Commission of the European Communities,
    rejecting the applicants' complaints of 13 and
     17 September 1996,
— annul the decisions adopted by the Directorate                                  Removal from the register of T-3 12/94 ( 1 )
     General for Personnel and Administration on 2 June
     1992 ( No 3678 ) and 1 March 1990 ( No 1269 ), albeit                                         ( 97/C 181 /47 )
     only in so far as those decisions appoint the applicants                           (Language of the case: English)
    to Grade 7;
                                                                        By order of 6 March 1997 the President of the Third
— in the alternative, annul the act published in the                    Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    Administrative Notices of 18 and 28 June 1996                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
    whereby an unspecified administrative body                          removal from the register of Case T-3 12/94 : CEPI
     interpreted the decision adopted by the Commission of              Cartonboard v. Commission of the European
    the European Communities on 7 February 1996 and                     Communities .
    the application of that decision of the Commission to
     Gregorio Valero Jordana,                                           O OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
— order the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                             Removal from the register of T-l 3 8/96 (')
Case T-l 6/9 7 (').                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /48 )
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Action brought on 21 April 1997 by Miguel Diaz-Llanos                   Case T-138/96 :       Giovanni Ballone Burini v. Court of
La Roche against the Commission of the European                         Justice of the European Communities.
                             Communities
                          ( Case T-124/97 )                             (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
                            ( 97/C 181 /46 )
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European                                   Removal from the register of T-l 6 1/96 ( ] )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                  ( 97/C 181 /49 )
Instance of the European Communities on 21 April 1997
by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La Roche, residing in Brussels,                                    (Language of the case: French)
represented by Edmundo Angulo Rodriguez, of the                         By order of 18 March 1997 the President of the First
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
care of Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Rue Marguerite de                      Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Brabant .                                                               Case T-161 /96 : Gundolf Bosetti v. Commission of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission, as
                                                                        (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     appointing authority, on 14 June 1996 , by which it
     decided not to reclassify the applicant in step, and the


title: Case C-310/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 85/374/EEC — Consumer protection — Liability for defective products — Material scope of the directive — Special liability system existing on the date of notification of that directive — Permissibility of a national liability system enabling information on the adverse effects of pharmaceutical products to be obtained)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH v S.
   (Case C-310/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 85/374/EEC - Consumer protection - Liability for defective products - Material scope of the directive - Special liability system existing on the date of notification of that directive - Permissibility of a national liability system enabling information on the adverse effects of pharmaceutical products to be obtained))
   (2015/C 026/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novo Nordisk Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: S.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, as amended by Directive 1999/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 1999, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, establishing a special liability system for the purposes of Article 13 of that directive — under which, in consequence of an amendment to that legislation made after the directive had been notified to the Member State concerned, the consumer has the right to require the manufacturer of the medicinal product to provide him with information on the adverse effects of that product.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-39/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 January 2016 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 January 2016 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-39/16)
   (2016/C 136/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code, in the version which was in force for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, infringe Article 4(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1)), in so far as that article of the Income Tax Code provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the amount of the dividends qualifying for exemption under Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares which, at the time of their transfer, had not been held for an uninterrupted period of at least one year, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?

               2.

               Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code, in the version which was in force for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, constitute a provision for the prevention of fraud or abuse within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC), and, if so, does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code go further than is necessary in order to combat such fraud or abuse in so far as it provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the dividends qualifying for exemption under Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares which, at the time of their transfer, had not been held for an uninterrupted period of at least one year, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).


title: Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Société Guérin Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-38/96)

text:
No C 145/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 5 . 96
Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Société Guérin                      Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996
Automobiles against the Commission of the European                     by Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA ),
                             Communities                               established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                          ( Case T-38/96 )                             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 , rue
                            ( 96/C 145/22 )                            Béatrix de Bourbon .
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      — declare that the Commission has failed to take steps in
Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996                      the matter since 6 November 1995 and, in so far as the
by Société Guérin Automobiles, established at Alençon                       Court interprets the silence of the Commission in
 ( France ), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris              response to the request for interim measures as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      tantamount to a refusal, annul that decision,
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 , rue Béatrix de Bourbon .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           — award SGA in any event the sum of ECU 150 000 as
                                                                           damages in addition to those applied for,
— declare that the Commission has wrongfully failed to
     act ,                                                            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— declare         that   the      Commission     has    incurred
     non-contractual liability towards Guérin Automobiles,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     and order it to pay the applicant compensation for the
     damage, assessed at FF 1 660 912, equivalent to ECU              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
     237 273 ,                                                         intermediary in the distribution of all makes of motor
                                                                       vehicle, contests the Commission's refusal to act on the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                      complaint lodged by it against the pressure applied by PSA
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        on Peugeot and Citroën concessionaires situated in other
                                                                      Member States in order to prevent supplies from reaching
The applicant company, which has already brought an                   agents and to partition the market.
action for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully
refrained from taking a decision in response to its complaint         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
concerning the imposition by Nissan France of a dealership             in Case T- 1 89/95 SGA v . Commission .
scheme incompatible with Commission Regulation ( EEC )
No 123/85 ('), has now brought fresh proceedings for a
declaration of failure to act, which also concern the
non-adoption by the Commission of a position on the
complaint, but which are based this time on a second formal
notice sent to the Commission on 2 January 1996 in
consequence of the objection of inadmissibility on the
ground of lateness raised by the Commission in the first              Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Armel de Kerros
action . As regards the application in respect of liability, in          against the Commission of the European Communities
which the applicant seeks compensation for the damage                                          Case T-40/96 )
caused by the Commission's conduct, the applicant merely                                       ( 96/C 145/24 )
claims once again the compensation applied for in the first
action, adding the amount of interest which has accrued to
date since the initiation of that action .                                           (Language of tbe case: French)
(M Case T-195/95 , OJ 1995 C 333 , p . 21 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 1996
                                                                      by Armel de Kerros, residing in Grez-Doiceau ( Belgium ),
Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Service pour le                    represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA) against the Commission               Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                 of the European Communities                          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                      SARL, 1 , rue Glesener.
                         ( Case T-39/96 )
                           ( 96/C 145/23 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
An action against the Commission of the European                           COM/T/B/96 not to admit the applicant to the tests in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          the competition,


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  15 September 2005  in Case C-258/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail de Liège in Office national de l'emploi v Ioannis Ioannidis (Job-seekers — European citizenship — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 39 EC — Tideover allowances for young people seeking their first employment — Grant conditional on completion of secondary education in the Member State concerned)

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 September 2005
   in Case C-258/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail de Liège in Office national de l'emploi v Ioannis Ioannidis (1)

   (Job-seekers - European citizenship - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 39 EC - Tideover allowances for young people seeking their first employment - Grant conditional on completion of secondary education in the Member State concerned)
   (2005/C 315/11)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-258/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de travail de Liège (Belgium), made by decision of 7 June 2004, received at the Court on 17 June 2004, in the proceedings between Office national de l'emploi and Ioannis Ioannidis — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it ruled:
   It is contrary to Article 39 EC for a Member State to refuse to grant a tideover allowance to a national of another Member State seeking his first employment, who is not the dependent child of a migrant worker residing in the Member State granting the allowance, on the sole ground that he completed his secondary education in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.


title: Case T-173/07: Order of the General Court of 11 January 2010 — Reno Schuhcentrum v OHIM — Payless ShoeSource Worldwide (Payless Shoesource)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/51

         Order of the General Court of 11 January 2010 — Reno Schuhcentrum v OHIM — Payless ShoeSource Worldwide (Payless Shoesource)
   (Case T-173/07) (1)

   2010/C 63/90

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-355/11: Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/52

         Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
   (Case T-355/11)
   2011/C 269/115
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Jorge Segovia Bonet (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M.E. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl (Milan, Italy)

      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 29 March 2011 in case R 749/2010-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘IES’, for services in classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 6787345

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: UK trade mark registration No 2358802 of the figurative mark ‘IES’, for services in class 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld partially the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the earlier trademark and the contested community trade mark application as (i) the compared signs are confusingly similar, in particular from a phonetic point of view; and (ii) the services designated by the earlier registration are complementary to those designated by the contested Community trade mark application.


title: Case T-665/14 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2014 by Robert Klar and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014 in Case F-114/13, Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/24

         Appeal brought on 17 September 2014 by Robert Klar and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014 in Case F-114/13, Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission
   (Case T-665/14 P)
   2014/C 380/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Robert Klar (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014;

               —

               refer the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for a determination on the merits;

               —

               order the European Commission to bear all of the costs of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the appellants rely on a single plea in law alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly held that the action was clearly inadmissible, for lack of a properly conducted pre-litigation procedure, in so far as the note of the Appointing Authority for October 2012 is not in view of its wording, or its context, or its form, an act adversely affecting an official, the notification of which set the time-limit running for lodging a complaint.


title: Action brought on 10 September 1996 by MD Foods Amba and Others against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-139/96)

text:
No C 354/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
According to the applicants, the contested decision is based         Action brought on 10 September 1996 by MD Foods Amba
on the view that CG Vita is not functionally independent             and Others against Commission of the European
because :                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 39/96 )
— the operation forms part of wider cooperation between                                         ( 96/C 354/57 )
     the founding undertakings;
— the functions of providing assistance on technical                                 (Language of the case: Danish)
     matters , management and distribution which those
     undertakings are to continue to carry out for the joint
     venture , in addition to their initial contributions , are
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
     wide-ranging and of particular financial significance ;         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 10 September
— the features of CG Vita 's insurance products are not              1996 by MD Foods and by Danske Mejeriers
     such as to distinguish them appreciably from those at           Fsellesorganisation on behalf of Klovermaelk Amba,
     present marketed by Generali .                                  Logismose Produktion A/S, Mejeriselkabet Vesthimmer
                                                                     land , Nordex Food A/S, Sinai Landmejeri and Stedager
                                                                     Andelsmejeri , represented by Georg Lett, Advokat, assisted
In the applicants ' view, however, the fact that the setting up      by N. Scandamis , Advokat, with an address for service in
of CG Vita forms part of wider cooperation between                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Roland Assa , 1 Rue
Generali and Unicredito is irrelevant for two reasons : first,
                                                                     J. P. Brasseur .
the cooperation of other kinds remains , at the present stage,
purely hypothetical and , in the event of its taking place , such
cooperation would be the subject of appropriate agreements
                                                                     The applicants claim that the Court should :
which the parties would, if necessary, submit for appraisal
by the competent anti-trust authorities; secondly, the
envisaged forms of cooperation have not the slightest link           — declare invalid and annul Commission Regulation ( EC )
with CG Vita but relate to cases of preferential relationships           No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 (') on the registration of
which Generali and Unicredito would enter into with each                 geographical indications and designations of origin
other in relation to their main areas of business .                      under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 in so far as concerns the
                                                                         registration of feta as a protected designation of
Furthermore , CG Vita fully meets the requirement of                     origin ;
functional independence in so far as it has sufficient
financial resources, will use a sales network based on
facilities which its bank shareholders intend to provide for         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
it, and will initially have a staff of 15 . The Commission 's
restrictive approach in that connection gives rise to legal
uncertainty for the parties, for which there is no need as far       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
as protection of the market from restrictions of competition
is concerned .
                                                                     The applicants make the following submissions in support
                                                                     of their claim for annulment :
The Commission's view that the requirement of functional
independence is not met takes no account of the special              1 . Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation No 2081 /92 ( 2 ) is not
nature of the insurance market, in which a set of controls                applicable pursuant to Article 1 73 and Article 1 84 of the
and prior authorizations is designed to guarantee the                     Treaty with the result that, in so far as concerns the
independence and financial solvency of the companies                      registration of feta , Commission Regulation ( EC )
operating in that sector.                                                 No 1107/96 was adopted without a valid enabling
                                                                          provision and therefore infringes an essential procedural
                                                                          requirement within the meaning of the second
Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission failed
adequately to state the reasons for its decision, in so far as            paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty :
the alleged absence of functional independence is based not
on the information available but on the view that the                     — Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92
probability of such independence is insufficient . If on the                  infringes Article 30 of the Treaty .
other hand the Commission had expressed doubts
concerning the extent and the duration of the contributions          2 . Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 infringes essential
from the parent companies, the parties would have had an                  procedural requirements which , in so far as concerns the
opportunity to provide further information and possibly                   registration of feta, renders it invalid under the second
amend the agreement .                                                     paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty :
                                                                          — The Greek legislation was introduced too late for it
                                                                              to be possible for feta to be registered under
                                                                              Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96             KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/29
      — The Commission did not submit a proposal for a                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          generic list to the Council before the entry into force
          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .                           — annul the disciplinary decision removing the applicant
                                                                            from his post, adopted by the defendant on 19 January
      — Failure to make public the product specification for                1996 ,
          feta .
      — Failure to make public the list of approved                     — annul the express decision of 1 7 June 1 996 by which the
          supervisory bodies .                                              defendant rejected the applicant's complaint of 5 March
                                                                             1996 ,
      — In determining whether feta should be registered, the
          Commission failed to follow sound administrative              — order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
          practice .
3 . Feta does not meet the conditions for registration                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and the
      registration of feta therefore infringes rules of law             The applicant alleges, first, breach of the obligation to state
      relating to the application of the Treaty within the              the reasons on which a decision is based . He states that the
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the             contested disciplinary decision is based on a finding against
      Treaty:                                                           him in criminal proceedings before the Tribunal de Premiere
                                                                        Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, but fails to take
      — Feta is a generic description .                                 account of the mitigating circumstances accepted by that
                                                                        court at two successive stages in the criminal proceedings .
      — The designation feta does not fulfil the conditions             The applicant considers that the disciplinary authority
          for registration as an indirect designation of origin         thereby failed in its obligation to give reasons , by virtue of
          under Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                   which it was required to examine all relevant information
          No 2081 /92 .
                                                                        before adopting the major penalty of removal of the
                                                                        applicant from his post, and committed a manifest error of
4 . The registration of feta infringes fundamental principles           assessment .
      of EC law and thus the Treaty, including Article 6 and
      Article 40 ( 3 ), and the principle of the protection of          The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to have regard
      legitimate expectations for the purposes of the second            for the welfare of officials . He criticizes the disciplinary
      paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty:                           authority for not taking account of his state of health, even
      — The registration of feta as a protected designation of          though the criminal court considered that it warranted a
          origin for the benefit of Greek producers represents          shorter period of imprisonment, suspended subject only to
          discrimination against the applicants in breach of            the condition that his health be monitored by a doctor. For
          Article 6 and Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                 the applicant, reasonable discharge of the duty to have
                                                                        regard for the welfare of officials justified a minor
      — The registration of feta in Regulation ( EC )                   disciplinary sanction rather than the major sanction of
          No 1107/96 breaches the principle of the protection           removal from his post.
          of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Finally, the applicant contends that the disciplinary decision
C ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                               undermined his right to a fair hearing since, in its preamble ,
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             it refers to his ' subsequent attitude' regarding the matters
                                                                        criticized, but gives no specific information relating to such
                                                                        matters .
Action brought on 16 September 1996 by 'Y' against the
                        European Parliament
                           ( Case T-144/96 )                            Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Gra^a de
                                                                        Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European
                             ( 96/C 354/58 )                                                       Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-146/96 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                    96/C 354/59 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought                                   (Language of the case: French)
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 September 1996 by 'Y', represented by
Gerard Colin , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 September


title: Case C-63/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail d’Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) — Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux S.A. (Social policy — Protection of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Directive 92/85/EEC — Articles 10 and 12 — Prohibition of dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy until the end of maternity leave — Judicial protection of rights enjoyed by individuals under Community law — Equal treatment for men and women — Directive 76/207/EEC — Article 2(7), third subparagraph — Less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave — Restriction of remedies available to women dismissed during pregnancy)

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail d’Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) — Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux S.A.
   (Case C-63/08) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Directive 92/85/EEC - Articles 10 and 12 - Prohibition of dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy until the end of maternity leave - Judicial protection of rights enjoyed by individuals under Community law - Equal treatment for men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Article 2(7), third subparagraph - Less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave - Restriction of remedies available to women dismissed during pregnancy)
   2009/C 312/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du Travail d’Esch-sur-Alzette

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Virginie Pontin

      Defendant: T-Comalux S.A.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal du Travail, Esch-sur-Alzette — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — Scope of the judicial protection of a pregnant worker who has been dismissed — Compatibility with the abovementioned directives of national legislation making a legal action brought by a pregnant worker who has been dismissed subject to short time-limits, fixed in advance, of 8 or 15 days and limiting the scope of the action to the continued employment in the undertaking, or the reinstatement there, of the worker who has been dismissed, to the exclusion of an award of damages

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides a specific remedy concerning the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers or workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding laid down in that Article 10, exercised according to procedural rules specific to that remedy, provided however that those rules are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and are not framed in such a way as to render practically impossible the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness). A fifteen-day limitation period, such as that laid down in the fourth subparagraph of Article L. 337-1(1) of the Luxembourg Labour Code, does not appear to meet that condition, but that is a matter for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Article 2, in conjunction with Article 3, of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that introduced by Article L 337-1(1) of the Luxembourg Labour Code, which is specific to the protection provided for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 in the event of the dismissal of a pregnant worker, or of a worker who has recently given birth or is breastfeeding, and which denies a pregnant employee who has been dismissed during her pregnancy the option to bring an action for damages whereas such an action is available to any other employee who has been dismissed, where such a limitation on remedies constitutes less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy. That would be the case in particular if the procedural rules relating to the only action available in the case of dismissal of such workers do not comply with the principle of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law, a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-208/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Marie Curie actions — Early-stage researchers — Call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008 — Grant agreements — Eligible costs — Recovery of sums paid — Concept of hosting researchers — Proportionality)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA
   (Case T-208/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Marie Curie actions - Early-stage researchers - Call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008 - Grant agreements - Eligible costs - Recovery of sums paid - Concept of hosting researchers - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 121/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universiteit Antwerpen (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking, first of all, a declaration that Grant Agreements No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and No 238686 ‘Cerebnet’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), which were entered into in the context of call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirmation that the REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs relating to the training of three early-stage researchers outside the applicant’s premises; and, secondly, an order that the REA is to pay all the costs related to the training of those early-stage researchers, as claimed by the applicant, together with interest from the date on which the payments were due under the agreements.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the Research Executive Agency (REA) to pay Universiteit Antwerpen the sum of EUR 45 526,73, corresponding to payment of some of the eligible costs under the ‘Cerebnet’ Agreement No 238686 entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), together with contractual interest from the date from which that amount was due under that agreement;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the REA and Universiteit Antwerpen to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-580/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — PJ Hungary v OHIM — Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PEPEQUILLO — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks PEPE and PEPE JEANS — Restitutio in integrum — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — PJ Hungary v OHIM — Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO)
   (Case T-580/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PEPEQUILLO - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks PEPE and PEPE JEANS - Restitutio in integrum - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 194/19
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Pepekillo, SL (Algeciras, Spain) (represented by: J. Garrido Pastor, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April and 24 September 2008 (both given in Case R 722/2007-1), concerning the application restitutio in integrum of Pepekillo, SL, and the opposition proceedings between PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) and Pepekillo, respectively.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2008 (Case R 722/2007-1) is annulled;

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed;

               3.

               OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs, half of the costs of PJ Hungary Szolgáltató kft (PJ Hungary kft) as well as the costs necessarily incurred by PJ Hungary kft for the purpose of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM;

               4.

               Pepekillo, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and half of the costs of PJ Hungary kft.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-481/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/43

         Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-481/07)
   (2008/C 64/72)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicants: Deltalinqs and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereniging Rotterdam (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 10 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 227, p. 4) concerning the Flemish rules on support for inter-modal transport via inland waterways (Aid measure N 682/2006 — Belgium). In the contested decision the Commission regards the support measure as compatible with the common market and decides not to raise any objection.
   In support of their application, the applicants claim that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ English Special Edition, 1970(II), p. 362) and Articles 12 and 73 EC. They state that the subsidy is available on the transhipment of containers in Flemish inland ports when the containers enter or leave the European Union via a Flemish sea port but not when a sea port is in another Member State. They claim that this constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality.
   They also argue that the subsidy leads to a distortion of competition, as it seriously disadvantages all ports in north-west Europe which trade with the Flemish hinterland, and particularly the port of Rotterdam.
   They also plead infringement of the obligation to investigate and state reasons. They maintain that the Commission has failed to investigate the consequences for competition and to explain why an economic investigation was not necessary.


title: Case T-256/07: Action brought on 16 July 2007 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/50

         Action brought on 16 July 2007 — People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council
   (Case T-256/07)
   (2007/C 211/94)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Auvers sur Oise, France) (represented by: J.P. Spitzer, lawyer, and D. Vaughan, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 2007/445/EC of the Council insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (1) maintaining the applicant on the list of the persons, groups and entities to whom a freeze of funds and other financial resources applies.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested Council decision should be annulled because the Council continued to rely on the listing of the applicant in Decision 2006/379/EC which should have been annulled or amended by the Council with regard to the applicant following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v Council [2006] ECR II-0000. According to the applicant the Council was under an obligation to remove the applicant's name from the said list.
   Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision was adopted in violation of the applicant's right to be heard and without proper reasoning.
   Moreover, the applicant claims that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of material all of which related to the period prior to the year 2001 and without taking into consideration material relating to the years after 2001 adduced by the applicant.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that these circumstances amount to an abuse or misuse of powers.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.


title: Case T-347/08: Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/43

         Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
   (Case T-347/08)
   (2008/C 272/85)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: iTouch International plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touchnet Information Systems, Inc. (Lenexa, United States)
   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 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2 to such extent as the court may deem fit; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘iTouch’ for services in classes 38 and 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 449 503 of the word mark ‘TOUCHNET’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.


title: Case C-64/14 P: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — Sven A. von Storch v European Central Bank (ECB) (Appeal — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person directly concerned — Decisions adopted by the European Central Bank — Guideline 2012/641/EU of the European Central Bank — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/3

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 — Sven A. von Storch v European Central Bank (ECB)
   (Case C-64/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Person directly concerned - Decisions adopted by the European Central Bank - Guideline 2012/641/EU of the European Central Bank - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
   (2015/C 320/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Sven A. von Storch (represented by: M. Kerber, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Kroppenstedt and G. Gruber, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Sven A. von Storch and the 5  216 other appellants, whose names are listed in the annex to this order, shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-424/06: Action brought on 6 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/8

         Action brought on 6 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-424/06)
   (2006/C 310/15)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2002/15/EC into domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.


title: Joined Cases T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2014  — Peter McBride and Others v Commission (Fisheries — Measures to conserve fishery resources — Sectoral restructuring — Requests to increase the Multiannual Guidance Programme objectives to improve safety on board — Ireland’s request concerning various vessels — Decision adopted following the General Court’s annulment of the initial decision concerning the same procedure — New refusal decision — Lack of competence of the Commission)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2014 — Peter McBride and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-458/10 to T-467/10 and T-471/10) (1)

   ((Fisheries - Measures to conserve fishery resources - Sectoral restructuring - Requests to increase the Multiannual Guidance Programme objectives to improve safety on board - Ireland’s request concerning various vessels - Decision adopted following the General Court’s annulment of the initial decision concerning the same procedure - New refusal decision - Lack of competence of the Commission))
   2014/C 202/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Peter McBride and Others (Downings, Ireland) (Case T-458/10); Hugh McBride (Downings) (T-459/10); Mullglen Ltd (Largy, Ireland) (T-460/10); Cathal Boyle (Fiafannon, Ireland) (Case T-461/10); Thomas Flaherty (Kilronan, Ireland) (Case T-462/10); Ocean Tawlers Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland) (Case T-463/10); Patrick Fitzpatrick (Killeany, Ireland) (Case T-464/10); Eamon McHugh (Killybegs) (Case T-465/10); Eugene Hannigan (Killybegs) (Case T-466/10); Larry Murphy (Castletownbere, Ireland) (Case T-467/10); Brendan Gill (Lifford, Ireland) (Case T-471/10) (represented initially by A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently by N. Travers, D. Barry and E. Barrington, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented in Cases T-458/10 to T-467/10, initially by K. Banks, A. Bouquet and A. Szmytkowska, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Doherty, Barrister, and, in Case T-471/10, by A. Bouquet and A. Szmytkowska, assisted by B. Doherty)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Commission decisions C(2010) 4758, C(2010) 4748, C(2010) 4757, C(2010) 4751, C(2010) 4764, C(2010) 4750, C(2010) 4761, C(2010) 4767, C(2010) 4754, C(2010) 4753 and C(2010) 4752 of 13 July 2010 rejecting the request submitted by Ireland seeking to increase the Multiannual Guidance Programme IV objectives for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 to take into account improvements on safety relating to the vessels Peader Elaine II, Heather Jane II, Pacelli, Marie Dawn, Westward Isle, Golden Rose, Shauna Ann, Antartic, Niamh Eoghan, Menhaden and Brendelen, belonging to Peter McBride, Hugh McBride, Mullglen, Mr Boyle, Mr Flaherty, Ocean Trawlers, Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr McHugh, Mr Hannigan, Mr Murphy and Mr Gill, respectively, adopted following the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase the MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 metres in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48) as a result of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649 and of the General Court in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decisions C(2010) 4758, C(2010) 4748, C(2010) 4757, C(2010) 4751, C(2010) 4764, C(2010) 4750, C(2010) 4761, C(2010) 4767, C(2010) 4754, C(2010) 4753 et C(2010) 4752 of 13 July 2010 rejecting the request submitted by Ireland seeking to increase the objectives of the Multiannual Guidance Programme IV in order to take into account improvements on safety relating to the applicants’ vessels;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-160/17: Action brought on 10 March 2017 — RY v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/55

         Action brought on 10 March 2017 — RY v Commission
   (Case T-160/17)
   (2017/C 144/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RY (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule:

               —

               The decision of 27 April 2016 of the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General (DG HR) terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff concluded for an indefinite period under Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS is annulled;

               —

               The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of the applicant to be heard before the adoption of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In addition, it was adopted in breach of the obligation to state reasons and, more exactly, of the right of the applicant to be informed of all the objective complaints which underlie the contested decision and, in particular, the reasons for an alleged breakdown in the relationship of trust.


title: Case C-344/09: Order of the Court of 24 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Mora Kommun — Sweden) — in the course of consideration of a complaint made by Dan Bengtsson (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Need for a dispute and proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/6

         Order of the Court of 24 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Mora Kommun — Sweden) — in the course of consideration of a complaint made by Dan Bengtsson
   (Case C-344/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Need for a dispute and proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2011/C 211/09
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Mora Kommun

      Party to the main proceedings

   Dan Bengtsson

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz) (OJ 1999 L 199, p. 59) and the precautionary principle — Effects on health of electromagnetic radiation from base stations for wireless telecommunication — Reference levels laid down by the recommendation

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by Mora Kommun, Miljö- och hälsoskyddsnämnden (Sweden) by decision of 2 June 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-113/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen): Paranova Oy (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC — Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product of reference)

text:
C 146/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.6.2003
subject-matter, account should be taken only of the claims of the                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
respective applicants, to the exclusion of the defence submissions
raised by a defendant.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                of 3 April 2003
                                                                             in Case C-116/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Raad van State): SITA EcoService Nederland BV,
                                                                             formerly Verol Recycling Limburg BV v Minister van
                                                                             Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                     beheer (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 —
                                                                             Directive 75/442/EEC — Treatment of waste in several
                                                                             stages — Use of waste as fuel in the cement industry and
                            of 8 May 2003
                                                                             use of incineration residues as raw material in cement
                                                                             manufacture — Classification as a recovery operation or as
in Case C-113/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    a disposal operation — Concept of the use of waste princi-
     the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen): Paranova Oy (1)                             pally as a fuel or other means to generate energy)
(Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —                                                    (2003/C 146/13)
Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
               the medicinal product of reference)                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                           (2003/C 146/12)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-116/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Raad van State (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court between SITA
                                                                             EcoService Nederland BV, formerly Verol Recycling Limburg
In Case C-113/01: Reference to the Court under Article                       BV and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
234 EC by Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Finland) for a                       en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as
court brought by Paranova Oy on the interpretation of                        amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and                          (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                 Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                             M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of a marketing           1.    Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
authorisation of reference of itself entails the withdrawal of the                 stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question.             operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/
However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel                 EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
imports of the medicinal product in question where there is in fact a              Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
risk to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of             Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, for the purpose
that medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State.                of implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of
                                                                                1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments
                                                                                of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January
                                                                                1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
                                                                                waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;


title: Case T-513/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Atrium — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2012 — Hamberger Industriewerke v OHIM (Atrium)
   (Case T-513/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Atrium - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 58/14
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH (Stephanskirchen, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 August 2010 (Case R 291/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Atrium as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Hamberger Industriewerke GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-125/11: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/27

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-125/11) (1)

   2013/C 71/44
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.