title: Case T-90/99: Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.6.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/13
13 April 1999 by Michel Hendrickx, residing at Ambelokipon,             Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG against
Greece, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Françoise Parmentier                   the Commission of the European Communities
and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange, L-1320 Luxembourg.                                                            (Case T-90/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 174/26)
— annul CEDEFOP’s decision of 3 June 1998 rejecting the
     applicant’s application for the post of ‘Head of General
     Support Services (Administration)’;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— annul CEDEFOP’s decision not to give consideration to his
     application for the post of ‘Head of Administration’;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the decision not to extend his contract as a member             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     of the temporary staff beyond 30 June 1998;                        European Communities on 15 April 1999 by Salzgitter AG,
                                                                        of Salzgitter, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 Rechtsanwalt, of Deringer Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant, a Council official, was seconded to CEDEFOP in
order to occupy a post as a member of its temporary staff. By
note of 12 December 1997, the applicant applied to the                  1. annul the Commission decision of 3 March 1999 (reference
Director of CEDEFOP for renewal of his contract until at least              SG (99) D/1542, procedure C 10/99/ex NN 55/98-
30 June 1998.                                                               Germany);
On 2 April 1998 CEDEFOP published an internal notice of                 2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
vacancy concerning the post of ‘Head of General Support
Services (Administration)’. On the same date, it also published
an internal notice of vacancy with regard to the post of ‘Head
of Administration’. The applicant applied for each of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
vacant posts.
                                                                        In the contested decision the Commission initiated a procedure
By note of 3 June 1998, the Director of CEDEFOP informed                for examining aid under Article 6(5) of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid
the applicant that he had decided to regard the applicant as            Code’ (1).
unsuitable for the post of ‘Head of General Support Services’
within the administration, and not to take into consideration
his internal application for the post of ‘Head of Adminis-              In the applicant’s view, the Commission concludes in its
tration’, or to extend his contract beyond 30 June 1998.                reasoning that tax write-offs and the possibility of creating
                                                                        reserves under the German Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (Law
The applicant maintains that the vacancy notices are illegal,           on the Promotion of Zone Boundary Areas) (2), taken advantage
inasmuch as they do not state the precise level of the post to          of by various companies in the applicant’s group, were
be filled or the nature of the tasks to be performed and                subsidies which constituted impermissible State aid. The
the qualifications required. According to the applicant, the            Commission therefore, in the applicant’s view, decides that
rejection of his applications for the posts in question is vitiated     proof has been provided of the grant of impermissible and
by a manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as that rejection           incompatible aid by the authorities to Salzgitter/Preussag Stahl
is based not on the decision of the Selection Committee but             and to the subsidiary companies in the ECSC sector of the
solely on the dissenting minority view of its President.                group.
Moreover, the decision not to give consideration to the
applicant’s application for the post of ‘Head of Administration’
is vitiated not only by a manifest error of assessment but also         The applicant complains of incorrect interpretation of
by misuse of powers and an abuse of procedure. Those                    Articles 4(c) and 67(1) of the ECSC Treaty: The purpose of the
decisions were adopted in flagrant breach of the principles of          Zonenrandförderungsgesetz was partial economic compen-
equal treatment and of non-discrimination.                              sation for the massive locational disadvantages resulting from
                                                                        the former situation along the border with the GDR and the
The applicant claims that the decision not to renew his                 CSSR. The law applied without exception to all Community
contract as a temporary agent beyond 30 June 1998 is a direct           undertakings with plants in that region. The factor of specific
consequence of those two decisions, the illegality of which,            preferential treatment of an undertaking, essential for the
according to him, renders unlawful the subsequent decision              definition of aid, is therefore lacking. Those provisions merely
not to renew his contract as a temporary agent.                         allowed the undertakings concerned a temporary post-
                                                                        ponement of the date of taxation, and never, as the Com-
                                                                        mission wrongly asserts, led to a transfer of State resources.
                                                                        Even the basic conditions for aid are thus absent.
 ---pagebreak--- C 174/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
The provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz constituted              — take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.
general measures of tax law of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which, according to the case-law of the Court of                    Trade mark        con- ‘OPTIONS’           —    Application
Justice, are to be assessed solely on the basis of Article 67 of             cerned:                  No 128611
the ECSC Treaty, not of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty or the               Product or service:      insurance, warranty, financing,
steel aid code.                                                                                hire-purchase and lease-purchase
The tax provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz were                     Decision contested refusal of registration by the exam-
always duly notified to the Commission in accordance with                    before the Board of iner
Article 93 of the EEC Treaty and were approved by the                        Appeal:
Commission throughout the period when that law was in                        Pleas in law relied on: — Article 7(2) does not itself pro-
force. Nor were any objections raised under Article 67(2) of                                              vide grounds for refusal but
the ECSC Treaty.                                                                                merely directs Article 7(1) (b)
                                                                                and (c);
Moreover, the contested decision is based on the provisions of
the steel aid code in force from 1986, which the Commission                                           — distinctiveness         acquired
ought not to have adopted by the procedure under the first                                                through use in a part of the
and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. The                                               Community should enable the
provisions of that code which extended the definition of aid to                                           provisions of Article 7(3) to
include non-specific aid by the Member States should not have                                             apply.
been applied in the present case.
In the alternative, the applicant submits that the contested
decision is founded on a legal basis which is not applicable:
according to Article 9 of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid Code’, it entered
into force only on 1 January 1997, that is, on a date when the
Zonenrandförderungsgesetz had already ceased to exist.
                                                                         Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
(1) Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996
    establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry
    (OJ L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 42).                                                              (Case T-98/99)
(2) Law of 5 August 1971, Bundesgesetzblatt i, p. 1237.
                                                                                (1999/C 174/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Ford Motor Company                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     European Communities on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe
                        Market (OHIM)                                    NV/SA, represented by Mr. Tom R. Otervanger, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff
                         (Case T-91/99)                                  Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.
                        (1999/C 174/27)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare, in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                   (Language of the case: English)                           that the Commission has failed to act by not having
                                                                             rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               of time upon the Applicant’s complaint lodged with the
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance                 Commission on 8 June 1998;
of the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Ford
Motor Company, having its registered office in Delaware, USA,            — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
represented by Anthony James Tweedale Willoughby, with an                    applicant in the present proceedings;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
Manhaeve, 56-58 rue Charles Martel.                                      — take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
                                                                             priate.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to refuse
     under Article (1)(b) and (c) of the Community Trade Mark            On 8 June 1998, the applicant submitted a formal complaint
     Regulation to register the word ‘OPTIONS’ as a trade mark;          against the German Republic for granting unlawful State aid
                                                                         contrary to Article 92 of the EC Treaty in connection with the
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market              proposed acquisition by Deutsche Post AG of 22.5 % of the
     to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present           shares of DHL. The applicant assumed that the financing of
     proceedings;                                                        the transaction infringed the said Article of the EC Treaty. The


title: Case T-18/01: Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.4.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/23
Grounds of claim:             Infringement of Regulation (EC)           In 1995, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17
                              No 40/94 on the Community                 he lodged a complaint with the Commission in respect of
                              trade mark (Article 8) — Infringe-        certain allegedly anticompetitive rules applied by the General
                              ment of the EC Treaty (Articles           Council of the Bar of England and Wales. The complaint related
                              28 and 29 EC) — No similarity             particularly to the requirement that a barrister practising at
                              between the conflicting trade             that Bar is to supply legal services only if briefed or instructed
                              marks — Impermissible splitting-          by a professional client. The applicant contends that this rule
                              up of the mark into its individual        constitutes a restriction of competition contrary to Article 81
                              component parts — Failure to              EC, inasmuch as it deprives the consumers of legal services of
                              have regard to the case-law of the        the ability to have access to the services provided by barristers
                              Court of Justice concerning the           practising at that Bar.
                              overall impression given by a
                              mark — Right of a competitor in
                              the market to combine the name            By letter of 12 January 2001, the Commission rejected the
                              of its main products with its com-        applicant’s complaint.
                              pany name — Change in the legal
                              position since registration of the
                              opposing mark.
                                                                        In the present case, the applicant submits inter alia that the
                                                                        Commission infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC by wrongly
                                                                        examining the validity of national legislation and by wrongly
                                                                        assessing the data from which it may be concluded that the
                                                                        essential elements of a situation, in which Articles 81, 82 and
                                                                        86 EC apply, are in fact present. Furthermore, he asserts that
                                                                        the Commission has misrepresented the Community nature
                                                                        and effects of the legal framework at Community level
                                                                        regulating the profession of lawyer in Directives 77/249/EEC,
Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Anthony Gold-                      89/48/EEC and 98/5/EC.
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties
                         (Case T-18/01)
                        (2001/C 108/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita Brands
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Anthony                      Chiquita Italia, S.p.A. against the Commission of the
Goldstein, represented by Mr R St J Murphy, Solicitor, of                                   European Communities
Merriman White, London (UK).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case T-19/01)
—     Annul the decision of the Commission of 12 January
      2001 rejecting the complaint made pursuant to Regu-                                        (2001/C 108/44)
      lation No 17 by the applicant concerning infringement
      of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General Council of the
      Bar of England and Wales
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 25 January 2001 by Chiquita
                                                                        Brands International, Inc, Chiquita Banana Company B.V. and
The applicant completed, in 1999, the Bar Vocational Course,            Chiquita Italia, S.p.A., represented by Mr C Pouncey, Solicitor,
a prerequisite for admission to the Bar of England and Wales            and Mr L Van Den Hende, Advocaat, of Herbert Smith, London
and the practice of law as a barrister.                                 (UK).


title: Case C-576/12 P: Appeal brought on 10 December 2012 by Ivan Jurašinović against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 October 2012 in Case T-465/09 Jurašinović v Council

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/14

         Appeal brought on 10 December 2012 by Ivan Jurašinović against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 3 October 2012 in Case T-465/09 Jurašinović v Council

   (Case C-576/12 P)
   2013/C 32/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Ivan Jurašinović (represented by: N. Amara-Lebret, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision under appeal, refer the case back to the General Court or, failing this;

               —

               annul the decision of 22 September 2009 by which the applicant was granted only partial access to the following documents: reports of the European Union observers present in Croatia, in the Knin area, of 1 August to 31 August 1995;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to authorise access, in electronic form, to all the documents requested;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 8 000 not including charges for litigation costs with interest at the ECB rate until the date of registration of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
   Firstly, the appellant takes the view that the General Court infringed the general principle of the right to a fair trial, since it could not have legitimately ruled on the application without having previously examined the documents to which access was requested.
   Secondly, the applicant raises the infringement of Articles 9(1) and 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, (1) because, while Article 4(1)(a) provides that it is possible to refuse access to a document undermining the public interest as regards international relations, such a refusal cannot be founded on the sensitive nature of documents which, since they have not been classified, are not entitled to protection under Article 9(1).
   Thirdly, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law concerning the existence of an earlier disclosure of the documents. In so far as the communication drawn up between the Council and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia may have as its basis only Regulation No 1049/2001, the existence of an earlier disclosure, to the benefit of a defendant, of European Union citizenship, in the context of criminal proceedings pending before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, required that the application be granted.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43


title: Case T-270/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/61

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission
   (Case T-270/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/74)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH (Guben, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. Kobes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case F-4/10: Action brought on 18 January 2010 — Nastvogel v Council

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/54

         Action brought on 18 January 2010 — Nastvogel v Council
   (Case F-4/10)
   2010/C 63/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christiana Nastvogel (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, H.-N. Louis and E Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision establishing the applicant's staff report for the period from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2007.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision establishing the applicant's staff report for the period from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2007.

               —

               Costs order against the Council of the European Union.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 July 1997 in Case T-179/97 R: Government of the Netherlands Antilles v. Council of the European Union (Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for interim measures - Urgency - None)

text:
C 318/ 14                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10 . 97
already reimbursed, at Lfrs 180 000, together with any                   of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
VAT due on that sum.                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                         Goethe, against Council of the European Union ( Agents:
(') OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                            R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin ), supported by
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: T. van
                                                                         Rijn ), Kingdom of Spain ( Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta ),
                                                                         French Republic ( Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and, at the
                                                                         hearing of the parties, C. Chavance ) and Italian Republic
                                                                         (Agents: U. Leanza and F. Quadri ) — application for
                                                                         interim measures in the form of an order of the President
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance enjoining the applicant and
                             of 11 July 1997                             defendant to negotiate a minimum price for imports into
in Case T-16/97: Bruno Chauvin v. Commission of the                      the Community of rice originating in the Netherlands
                       European Communities (')                          Antilles, to replace the tariff quotas introduced by Council
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing
(Officials — Judgment of the Court of First Instance —                   safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice
Application for reclassification in grade — Objection of                 originating in the overseas countries and territories ( OJ
      inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)               L 151 , 10 . 6 . 1997, p. 8 ), and to submit their conclusions
                                97/C 318/27 )                            to him within seven days — the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance made an order on 15 July 1997, the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-16/97: Bruno Chauvin, an official of the                       1 . The Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                          Italian Republic and the Commission are granted leave
Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels                     to intervene in support of the defendant in the
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        interlocutory proceedings.
office of Fiduciaire Myson sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Florence Clotuche and Christine Berardis-Kayser ) —                      2 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
18 June 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for a review
                                                                         3.   Costs are reserved.
of his classification in grade — the Court of First Instance
( First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President;
C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 11 July 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows :
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 July 1997
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                         in Case T-180/95 : Nutria AE v. Commission of the
( ] ) OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997.                                                                European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                         (Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the
                                                                         people of Georgia and Armenia — Damage alleged by the
                                                                         successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection
                                                                         of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the
                                                                         Commission       —   Action     to  establish non-contractual
                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                 liability — Contractual origin of the Commission 's
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                obligation on which the action is based — Absence of any
                             of 15 July 1997                             arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty — Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
in Case T-l 79/97 R: Government of the Netherlands
                                                                                Court of First Instance)
           Antilles v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/29 )
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
Safeguard measure — Interlocutory proceedings —
     Application for interim measures — Urgency — None)                                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                              ( 97/C 318/28 )
                                                                         In Case T-180/95 , Nutria AE, established in Athens,
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                         represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the
                                                                         Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
In Case. T-179/97 R, Government of the Netherlands                       the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,                Foire, against Commission of the European Communities


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 November 1997 in Case T-15/96: Lino Liao v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Actions for annulment - Delay in drawing up staff report - Actions for damages - Admissibility - Damage)

text:
C 387/ 18                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                    3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                   (') OJ C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
Rue de Cessange , v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Florence
Clotuche ) — application for the annulment of a
Commission decision of 9 October 1996 rejecting a review
of the decision on the applicant's classification in grade —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and J. Pirrung, Judges;                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 November 1997,                                          of 6 November 1997
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         in Case T-15/96: Lino Liao v. Council of the European
                                                                                Union (')
I . the application is dismissed;
                                                                         (Officials — Actions for annulment — Delay in drawing
                                                                         up staff report — Actions for damages — Admissibility —
2 . each party shall hear its own costs.                                                                   Damage)
                                                                                ( 97IC 387/32 )
(') OJ C 94 , 22 . 3 . 1997 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-15/96 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of
                                                                         the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         Pierre-Paul Gehuchten and Constantin Nikis, of the
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        of 6 November 1997                               the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( Agents: Diego Canga
in Case T-223/95 : Luigi Ronchi v. Commission of the                     Fano and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for
                     European Communities (')                            annulment of the definitive staff report, dated 6 November
 (Officials — Article 90 (1 ) of the Staff Regulations —                  1995 , for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 ,
Decision implicitly rejecting an application — Article 24                notified to the applicant on 9 November 1995 , and for
     of the Staff Regulations — Duty to provide assistance)              damages — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
                                                                         composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and A.
                              ( 97/C 387/31 )                            Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A.
                                                                         Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 6 November 1997, in which it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1 . dismisses the action;
 In Case T-223/95 : Luigi Ronchi , a former official of the
 Commission of the European Communities, residing in
 Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                     2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Demaseure , Veronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel , of the
 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
 the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
 Cessange , v. Commission of the European Communities
 ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ) —
 application, first, for annulment of a decision implicitly
 rejecting an application for assistance submitted by the
 applicant on 30 January 1995 and, second, for payment of
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 the token sum of ECU 1 - by way of compensation for the
 non-material damage allegedly suffered by him — the                                              of 6 November 1997
 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                          in Case T-71/96: Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek v.
 C. W. Bellamy, President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
 M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in                   (Officials — Competition based on qualifications and tests
 which it :                                                                             — Non-admission to the oral tests)
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/33 )
  1 . annuls the Commission 's decision implicitly rejecting
       the application for assistance submitted by the                                      (Language of the case: French)
      applicant on 30 January 1995;
                                                                          In Case T-71 /96 : Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek, a
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                          probationer official of the Commission of the European


title: Case T-386/12: Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/30

         Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Elite Licensing v OHIM — Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val (elite BY MONDARIZ)
   (Case T-386/12)
   2012/C 355/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elite Licensing Company SA (Fribourg, Suisse) (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: Aguas De Mondariz Fuente del Val, SL (Mondariz, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2012 in case R 9/2011-5; and

               —

               Order the defendant 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 ‘elite BY MONDARIZ’, for goods and services in classes 32, 38 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 6957872

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition:: Community trade mark registration No 4995114 for the word mark ‘ELITE MODEL LOOK’, for goods and services in classes 8, 9, 11, 21 and 38; Community trade mark application No 5765185 for the figurative mark ‘elite’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44; International trade mark registration No 949195 for the figurative mark ‘elite’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 43 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Rules 48(2), 49(1) and 96 (1) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and

               —

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


title: Case C-110/02: Action brought on 25 March 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Council of the European Union

text:
C 131/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1.6.2002
Action brought on 25 March 2002 by Commission of the                           Although the Treaty empowers the Council to intervene
European Communities against Council of the European                           exceptionally where what is required is an assessment of
                               Union                                           the compatibility of a measure with the common market,
                                                                               it does not allow it to substitute its own assessment for
                                                                               that of the Commission as to the existence of State aid.
                          (Case C-110/02)
                                                                               By adopting the contested decision, the Council has itself
                          (2002/C 131/14)                                      bypassed, and allowed a Member State to bypass, the
                                                                               remedy under Article 230 and the applicable time-limits
                                                                               in order to negative the effects of a decision which could
                                                                               no longer be annulled by the Community judicature.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 25 March 2002 by the Commission of the European                  —     Infringement of the Treaty and of general principles of
Communities, represented by Francisco Santaolalla Gadea,                       Community law: the contested decision constitutes a
Dimitris Triantafyllou and Vittorio Di Bucci, acting as Agents,                flagrant infringement of Article 14 of Council Regulation
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     659/99 (2) since, in this specific case, it is preventing the
                                                                               effective recovery of aid by authorising aid in an equi-
                                                                               valent amount.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                               The contested decision also upsets the institutional equi-
—     annul Council Decision 2002/114/EC (1);                                  librium established by the Treaty between the Com-
                                                                               mission and the Council in that the latter has usurped the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    supervisory role which, other than within the narrowly-
                                                                               bounded exception provided for in Article 88(2), falls
                                                                               within the purview of the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                The conduct in question also upsets the institutional
                                                                               balance between the ‘executive’ institutions and the
                                                                               Community judicature and, more generally, undermines
—     Lack of competence of the Council: the underlying                        the jurisdictional system set up by the Treaty.
      assumption of the Treaty is that it is for the Commission,
      as a general rule, to monitor State aid. It is true to say
      that in the framework of such a monitoring system                        There has also been an infringement of the principle of
      the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC remains                       legal certainty as embodied in the procedural time-limits.
      applicable, but only as a departure from the usual
      mechanism, that is to say as an extraordinary power
      under the general law which must be interpreted restric-
      tively. Since it is not explicitly provided for, instances of      —     (In the alternative): manifest error of assessment and
      Council decisions which come after Commission                            misuse of powers as regards the existence of exceptional
      decisions must be resolved in accordance with the                        circumstances.
      principles which underlie the explicit conflicts rule con-
      tained in the Treaty, namely: that there is no order of
      precedence in conflicts of competences, no preemption              —     (In the further alternative): lack of or erroneous statement
      and no power to revoke or amend. Once the Commission                     of reasons.
      has adopted a final decision, the Council can no longer
      intervene. Likewise and for the same reasons the Council
      also has no power to negative the effects of a final
      decision of the Commission, as in the present case, by
      emptying it of its substance by authorising the grant of
                                                                         (1) Council Decision 2002/114/EC of 21 January 2002 authorising
      aid in an amount equal to that of the aid declared to be               the Government of Portugal to grant aid to Portuguese pig farmers
      incompatible.                                                          who were beneficiaries of the measures granted in 1994 and
                                                                             1998 (OJ L 43 of 14.2.2002, p. 18).
—     Misuse of powers and abuse of process: where the                   (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
      Council uses its powers of authorisation not just to grant             down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
                                                                             Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
      authorisation, in exceptional circumstances, for aid which
      would otherwise be, in all likelihood, declared incompat-
      ible by the Commission, but, after the adoption of the
      Commission decision, with a view to nullifying its effects,
      it is exercising its powers with a purpose other than that
      intended by the Treaty.


               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/2

         Assignment of a new Judge to the Chambers
   (2005/C 31/04)
   At its meeting on 19 October 2004, the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided to assign Mr Ó Caoimh to the Third and Sixth Chambers.
   The Third and Sixth Chambers are as a result composed as indicated below.
   Third Chamber
   Mr Rosas, President,
   Mr Borg Barthet, Mr La Pergola, Mr Puissochet, Mr von Bahr, Mr Malenovský, Mr Lõhmus and Mr Ó Caoimh, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Borg Barthet, President,
   Mr La Pergola, Mr Puissochet, Mr von Bahr, Mr Malenovský, Mr Lõhmus and Mr Ó Caoimh, Judges


title: Case T-647/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014  — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ASOS — Earlier Community word mark ASSOS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS)
   (Case T-647/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ASOS - Earlier Community word mark ASSOS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 184/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Asos plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor, and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Roger Maier (San Pietro di Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2011 (Case R 2215/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Roger Maier and Asos plc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses Mr Roger Maier’s application;

               3.

               Orders Asos plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               4.

               Orders Mr Maier to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25. 2. 2012.


title: Case C-392/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Marcu Dumitru v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Romania) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Marcu Dumitru v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
   (Case C-392/16)
   (2016/C 350/21)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Marcu Dumitru

      Respondent: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

      Question referred

   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, do Directive 77/388/EEC (1) and Directive 2006/112/EC (2) preclude national legislation or a tax practice according to which the reverse charge mechanism (simplification measures) — which was at the time mandatory for transactions, relating to land, between taxable persons for VAT purposes — is not applicable to a person who has been subject to an investigation and registered, automatically, for VAT purposes following that investigation, on the grounds that that person had not applied for or been granted registration before the transactions were carried out or the ceiling [for exemption] was exceeded?

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

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


title: Case T-61/02: Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Commerzbank AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/66               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.5.2002
The decision constitutes a misuse of discretionary powers,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
inasmuch as the Commission pursued extra-legal political
objectives, namely the making of a gesture to the public in
connection with the introduction of the euro. For as long as            —     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 December 2001,
applications made in the current administrative proceedings in                addressed to the applicant and received by it on
Case T-216/01 R had not been determined and remained                          20 December 2001, in Case COMP/E-1/37.919
pending, the adoption of a definitive decision was not permiss-               (ex 37.391), concerning the imposition of a fine;
ible.
It has not been shown that there has been any tangible adverse          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
effect on trade between Member States.
The applicant participated neither in an agreement on the type
of charges to be made nor in any agreement on the amount of
a target price. The commission system could not have been               Pleas in law and main arguments
the subject of any concerted agreement, if only because, prior
to the entry into force of Regulation No 1103/97, there had
been no legally permissible alternative to it. The evidence relied
on by the defendant is unproductive and self-contradictory.             The Commission infringed the applicant’s rights of defence. It
The last piece of evidence produced by the defendant dates              afforded the applicant no opportunity to learn of the criteria
from 15 October 1997, i.e. some four and a half years before            according to which it discontinued certain parallel procedures.
the conclusion of the alleged agreement. Since then, there has          The Commission did not insist on reductions in charges in
been no contact between the banks concerned. A representa-              every case, and treated various banks differently as regards the
tive of the German Bundesbank had taken part in the                     amount of the reductions in charges. It should have told the
alleged cartel meeting, and the Bundesbank had been officially          applicant which non-discriminatory criteria it was applying in
informed of the results of that meeting.                                deciding whether to continue or to discontinue the procedure.
                                                                        Moreover, the Commission’s decision contained new incrimin-
As to the duration of the alleged agreement, the decision is in         ating evidence compared to the points raised in the heads of
itself contradictory, since the operative part of the decision is       claim served, and the applicant was not given a chance to
based on a different duration from that on which the                    comment on that new evidence. Lastly, the applicant was
calculation of the fine is based.                                       refused access to the files in the parallel procedures. The
                                                                        Commission attached greater importance to the rapid impo-
                                                                        sition of a fine for political reasons than to a fair hearing.
The basic amounts used for the calculation of the fine are
arbitrary and disproportionate.
                                                                        The applicant denies that any anti-competitive agreements
                                                                        were concluded at a meeting held on 15 October 1997
                                                                        between foreign exchange dealers. The subject-matter of that
                                                                        meeting was market trends and a discussion of matters which
                                                                        were generally known. That discussion formed part of a series
                                                                        of conferences held during the period from 1996 to 1998 for
                                                                        the purposes of preparing for the introduction of the euro,
                                                                        which were also frequently attended by representatives of
Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Commerzbank AG                        the central banks and sometimes by representatives of the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    Commission. As is apparent from internal documents, the
                                                                        applicant had adopted an autonomous decision to charge a
                                                                        percentage fee even before the meeting of 15 October 1997
                          (Case T-61/02)                                took place. The Commission’s complaint is inconclusive, and
                                                                        the Commission does not describe the content of the alleged
                                                                        agreement. The evidence produced in that regard by the
                        (2002/C 109/124)
                                                                        Commission, especially the internal memorandum of an
                                                                        employee of the Netherlands GWK Bank N.V., is inappropriate.
                  (Language of the case: German)                        The Commission’s decision shows a lack of technical know-
                                                                        ledge and objectivity. The Commission failed to recognise the
                                                                        difference between dealing in foreign notes and coins and
                                                                        foreign exchange dealing, and did not take account of the legal
                                                                        situation prevailing at the time; moreover, it represents the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               facts in a one-sided way which is detrimental to the applicant.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2002 by Commerzbank
AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by H. Satzky
and B. Maassen, lawyers.


title: Case C-374/02: Action brought on 16 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 44/12                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.2.2003
Action brought on 16 October 2002 by the Commission                       received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2002, for a
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  preliminary ruling in the administrative judicial proceedings
                                                                          between Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and the Landrat
                                                                          (Principal Officer) of the Herford Local Authority on the
                          (Case C-374/02)
                                                                          following question:
                           (2003/C 44/22)
                                                                          Is the provision in Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC (1), by
                                                                          which, with a view to the approximation of the laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 October                products, the placing on the market of tobacco for oral use is
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       prohibited, without prejudice to Article 151 of the Act
represented by M. Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi, acting              concerning the Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,
as Agents.                                                                compatible with the superior law of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 194, p. 26.
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 1999/31/EC (1) of 26 April 1999 on
      the landfill of waste, or in any event by failing to inform
      the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive:
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Essen by order of that Court of 25 November 2002 in
                                                                          proceedings relating to the commercial register between
                                                                          Axel Springer AG and Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH
                                                                                & Co. Essen KG
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-435/02)
Article 249 EC, according to which a directive is to be binding,
                                                                                (2003/C 44/24)
as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to
which it is addressed, implies that Member States are required
to comply with the time-limits for transposition laid down in
directives. When the time-limit expired, the Italian Republic             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
had not promulgated the provisions necessary to comply with               European Communities by order of the Landgericht Essen
the directive referred to in the Commission’s claims.                     (Regional Court Essen) of 25 November 2002, received at the
                                                                          Court Registry on 2 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          in proceedings relating to the commercial register between
( 1) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.
                                                                          Axel Springer AG and Zeitungsverlag Niederrhein GmbH &
                                                                          Co. Essen KG on the following questions:
                                                                          (1) Is Directive 90/605/EEC ( 1), in conjunction with
                                                                                Article 47 of Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), compatible with
                                                                                the fundamental Community right of freedom to exercise
                                                                                a trade or profession in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                       (limited partnerships) whose personally liable partner is a
icht Minden by order of that Court of 14 November                               private limited company are obliged to publish their
2002 in the administrative judicial proceedings between                         annual accounts and annual report, in particular without
Arnold André GmbH & Co. KG and the Landrat of the                               any restriction being imposed on the group of persons
                     Herford Local Authority                                    entitled to inspect those documents?
                                                                          (2) Is Directive 90/605/EEC, in conjunction with Article 47
                          (Case C-434/02)                                       of Directive 78/660/EEC, compatible with the fundamen-
                                                                                tal Community rights of freedom of the press and radio
                           (2003/C 44/23)                                       in so far as Kommanditgesellschaften whose personally
                                                                                liable partner is a private limited company and which are
                                                                                engaged in the press and publishing sector or the radio
                                                                                broadcasting sector are obliged to publish their annual
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          accounts and annual report, in particular without any
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                         restriction being imposed on the group of persons
Minden (Administrative Court Minden) of 14 November 2002,                       entitled to inspect those documents?


title: Case C-657/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 21 December 2011 — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 21 December 2011 — Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV
   (Case C-657/11)
   2012/C 73/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology
   Defendants:

               Bert Peelaers

               Visys NV

      Question referred

   Is the term ‘advertising’ in Article 2 of Council Directive 84/450/EEC (1) of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising and in Article 2 of Directive 2006/114/EC (2) of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising to be interpreted as encompassing, on the one hand, the registration and use of a domain name and, on the other, the use of metatags in a website’s metadata?

      (1)  OJ L 250, p. 17.

      (2)  OJ L 376, p. 21.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/31

         Removal from the register of Case C-460/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/58)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 23 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-460/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

      (1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-434/07: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2009 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2009 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)
   (Case T-434/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark SOLVO - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 24/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and A. Folliard Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Elena Grebenshikova (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1240/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1240/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Ms Elena Grebenshikova;

               2.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding;

               3.

               Orders Ms Grebenshikova to bear her own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Volvo Trademark Holding.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Second Chamber - Tax matters) of 4 October 1995 in the proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda Pública and Fricarnes SA (Case C-28/96)

text:
16 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 77/9
      under the legislation of one Member State may not rely            Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1531/88 (') of 31 May
      on the provisions of Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )       1988 valid ?
      No 1408/71 in order to challenge a withdrawal of
      entitlement on the sole ground that the person resides in         (') Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
      the territory of another Member State ?                                 potassium permanganate originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                              China ( OJ No L 138 , 1988 , p. 1 ).
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1247/92 made within the powers granted by the
      Treaty of Rome, and in particular by Articles 5 1 and 235
      of that Treaty ?
(') OJ No L 149, 1971 , p . 2 .                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber —
                                                                        Tax matters ) of 4 October 1995 in the proceedings
                                                                        pending before that court between Fazenda Publica and
                                                                                Fricarnes SA
                                                                                ( Case C-2 8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/20 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
orders of that court of 10 January 1996 in criminal
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Second
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
                               Cannizzaro
                                                                        Chamber for tax matters of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                        Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
                 ( Cases C-24/96 and C-25/96 )                          4 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                             ( 96/C 77/ 18 )                            on 1 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
                                                                        Publica ( tax authorities ) and Fricarnes SA on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        questions :
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                1 . Are the 'charges' described, which have                      the
10 January 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry                   characteristics described above, contrary                   to
on 29 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in ciriminal                    Article 95 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
Cannizzaro . The questions referred by the Pretura                      2 . Are they to be regarded as charges having an effect
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the
                                                                              equivalent to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with                   Articles 9 and 12 of that Treaty ?
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).
                                                                        3 . Are they to be regarded as turnover taxes within the
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                                               meaning of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive (^ without
                                                                               prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( 2 ) or any
                                                                               other Community legislation ?
                                                                        (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 135 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 10 January 1996 in the
case of Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH & Co . v.
              Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof
                           ( Case C-26/96 )
                             ( 96/C 77/19 )                                     Removal from the register of Case C-263/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                      By order of 13 November 1995 the President of the Court of
Hamburg — Fourth Chamber of the Joint Chamber of the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Finanzgericht Hamburg for the Länder of the Free and                    from the register of Case C-263/94 : Commission of the
Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony and                             European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands .
Schleswig-Holstein — of 10 January 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1996 , for a
                                                                        H OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
preliminary ruling in the case of Rotexchemie International
Handels GmbH & Co . v. Hauptzollamt Ham
burg-Waltershof on the following question :


title: Case T-224/99: Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the European Council of Transport Users ASBL against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the European                        It still submits that the exemption in question cannot satisfy
Council of Transport Users ASBL against the Commission                  the condition that shippers should enjoy a fair share of the
                of the European Communities                             alleged economic benefits since the clear intention of the
                                                                        revised TACA provisions is to increase prices for through
                                                                        transport and, in particular, maritime transport. Even if
                        (Case T-224/99)                                 the exempted provisions were indispensable for the alleged
                                                                        stability benefit, they would have the effect of eliminating
                                                                        effective competition on through transport rates.
                         (2000/C 6/48)
                                                                        Moreover, the Multi-modal Group Report makes it clear,
                                                                        according to the applicant, that the Commission has to
                  (Language of the case: English)                       investigate a number of crucial issues and, in particular,
                                                                        ensure that there are sufficient safeguards for shippers before
                                                                        considering authorising any not-below-cost rule. However, the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Commission has failed to consider these relevant issues and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              therefore, its reasoning in the contested decision is to be
European Communities on 7 October 1999 by the European                  considered as defective.
Council of Transport Users ASBL, represented by Mark Clough
QC, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of          The applicant further claims that the defendant institution has
Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue.                                               misused its powers or acted outside its competence by
                                                                        effectively granting an exemption under Regulation
                                                                        Nos 4056/86 for a form of price fixing intended to enhance
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the price fixing in the maritime transport, when inland
                                                                        transport should fall outside that regulation.
— annul the Commission Decision;
                                                                        Finally, the contested decision should not have followed the
                                                                        procedure applicable to complaints under Articles 10 and
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;                    11(3) of Regulations 1017/68 and 4056/86.
— take any measures of preliminary enquiry that the Court
     may consider necessary.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Action brought on 8 October 1999 by Comafrica SpA
                                                                        and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the
The present application concerns the Commission’s decision                        Commission of the European Communities
not to raise serious doubts under Article 12(3) of Regulation
No 1017/68 in respect of the provisions in the revised                                            (Case T-225/99)
Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement (TACA) falling within
the scope of Regulation No 1017/68. As a consequence of this
act, the not-below-cost rule in Article 10 and related provisions                                  (2000/C 6/49)
of the revised TACA enjoy an individual exemption for three
years until 5 May 2002. The exemption authorises the TACA
lines to agree not to resell the inland transport services which                           (Language of the case: English)
they purchase in Europe below the out-of-pocket ‘costs’ of
purchasing that transport.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 8 October 1999 by Comafrica SpA
The applicant submits first at all that the contested act does          and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., represented by Bernard
not satisfy any of the conditions for individual exemption              O’Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcı́a Porras, with an
contained in Article 5 of Regulation Nos 1017/68 and their              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Arsene
equivalent in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty. In particular, the        Kronshagen, 22 rue Marie Adelaide.
Commission’s decision is contrary to previous decisions and
to the conclusions of the 1997 Multi-modal Group report
presented to Commissioner Van Miert. These should have                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
made clear that the liner Conference inland transport price
fixing provides no economic benefits (in particular, the alleged        — declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, Com-
stability of maritime transport liner conference tariffs) and                mission Regulation (EC) No 1586/99 fixing the reduction
that, even if there were to be such a benefit, the restrictions of           coefficient for the determination of the quantity of bananas
competition would not be indispensable to its achievement.                   to be allocated to each operator for 1999;


title: Case C-8/00: Action brought on 11 January 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 63/20                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandes-                     Pleas in law and main arguments
gericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 23 December
1999 in the case of Michael Hölterhoff against Dr Ulrich
                             Freiesleben                                  Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
                                                                          a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                          upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                            (Case C-2/00)                                 on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                          laid down in the directive. That period expired on 17 Septem-
                           (2000/C 63/36)                                 ber 1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                          necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    conclusions of the Commission.
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court) — Twentieth
Civil Chamber — of 23 December 1999, received at the Court                (1) OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 59.
Registry on 5 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Michael Hölterhoff against Dr Ulrich Freiesleben on the
following question:
Does an infringement of a trade mark in the sense contem-
plated in the second sentence of Article 5(1) and Article 5(1)(a)
and (b) of Directive 89/104/EEC(1) occur where the defendant
reveals the origin of goods which he has produced himself and
uses the sign in respect of which the plaintiff enjoys protection         Action brought on 14 January 2000 by the Commission
solely to denote the particular characteristics of the goods he                   of the European Communities against Ireland
is offering for sale so that there can be no question of the trade
mark used being perceived in trade as a sign indicative of the
firm of origin?                                                                                (Case C-13/00)
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 1989 L 159, p. 60.                                        (2000/C 63/38)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities on 14 January 2000 by
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Manuel Desantes, a
                                                                          national expert seconded to its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
Action brought on 11 January 2000 by the Commission                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                          Commission, Centre Wagner.
                            (Case C-8/00)
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2000/C 63/37)
                                                                          a) find that, by failing to obtain its adherence before 1 January
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                      1995 to the Paris Act of the Berne Convention for the
Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2000 by                      Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Ireland has failed
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                        to fulfil its obligations under Article 300(7) of the EC
by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an                   Treaty in conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                      Agreement on the European Economic Area and
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.                                                b) order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 96/53/EC (1) of 25 July 1996 concerning            Under Article 5 of Protocol 28 to the Agreement on the
     the maximun authorised dimensions in national and                    European Economic Area (hereinafter ‘the EEA Agreement’)
     international traffic and the maximum authorised weights             Ireland was obliged to obtain its adherence, before 1 January
     in international traffic, or in any event by failing to inform       1995, to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
     the Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to              and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971). This obligation also rests
     fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                         on Article 300(7) EC (ex Article 228(7) of the EC Treaty)
                                                                          which provides that international agreements duly concluded
(2) order Ireland to pay the costs.                                       by the Community shall be binding on the Member States.


title: Case F-124/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v Parliament (Promotion — 2006 promotion exercise — Comparative examination of the merits)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/72

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v Parliament
   (Case F-124/07) (1)

   (Promotion - 2006 promotion exercise - Comparative examination of the merits)
   2010/C 24/132
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and R. Ignătescu, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment, first, of the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Parliament to allocate two promotion points to the applicant for 2005 and, second, of the decision to not promote the applicant to grade AD 13 for the 2006 promotion exercise.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 56.


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/17

         Removal from the register of Case C-330/02 (1)

   (2005/C 19/33)

      (Language of the case: English)

   By order of 14 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-330/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.