title: Case T-415/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy (Public supply contracts — Euratom — Public procurement procedure of the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy — Supply of electrical equipment — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Open procedure — Bid containing reservations — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectation — Proportionality — Conflict of interests — Awarding decision — Action for annulment — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-415/10) (1)

   (Public supply contracts - Euratom - Public procurement procedure of the Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy - Supply of electrical equipment - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Open procedure - Bid containing reservations - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Proportionality - Conflict of interests - Awarding decision - Action for annulment - Not directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Non-contractual liability)
   2013/C 129/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nexans France (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet, J.-F. Le Corre and M. Pigeat, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Verpont, acting as Agent, and C. Kennedy-Loest, T. Christopher, Solicitors, J. Derenne, N. Pourbaix, lawyers, and M. Farley, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Firstly, annulment of the decision rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for compensation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nexans France to pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-375/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Rosanna Laezza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Judgment of the Court of Justice which declared the national rules on licences for the collection of bets incompatible with EU law — Reorganisation of the system by way of a new call for tenders — Free-of-charge transfer of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned by licensees and which constitute their network for the management and collection of bets. — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Rosanna Laezza
   (Case C-375/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Judgment of the Court of Justice which declared the national rules on licences for the collection of bets incompatible with EU law - Reorganisation of the system by way of a new call for tenders - Free-of-charge transfer of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned by licensees and which constitute their network for the management and collection of bets. - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 106/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Frosinone

      Party in the main proceedings

   Rosanna Laezza

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case T-262/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/53

         Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-262/05)
   (2005/C 217/110)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 1 June 2005 (Case R 1184/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a green six petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 168

               Decision of the examiner:

               Refusal of the application

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-314/16: Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/16

         Action brought on 1 June 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-314/16)
   (2016/C 287/20)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and J. Hottiaux

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that:

                           (a)

                           by failing to ensure that the definition of groups C1 and C relates only to vehicles other than vehicles in groups D 1 and D, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/126/EC;

                           (b)

                           by restricting the definition of group D1 to vehicles designed and constructed for more than eight passengers, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC; (1)

               2.

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 4(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC provides that driving licences are to authorise the driving of power-driven vehicles in the categories defined in that article. Under Article 4(4)(d) and (f) of the Directive, the groups C1 and C are further defined. The condition that the group must include vehicles ‘other than those in categories D1 or D’ is expressly provided for in respect of both groups. The Czech legislation defining vehicle groups however does not include the condition that groups C1 and C must be restricted to ‘motor vehicles other than those in categories D1 or D’.
   Article 4(4)(h) of Directive 2006/126/EC defines group D1 as a group including vehicles ‘designed and constructed for the carriage of no more than 16 passengers in addition to the driver’, without providing for a minimum number of passengers. The Czech legislation however includes the additional requirement that vehicles intended for the carriage of more than 8 passengers are to be classified in group D1.

      (1)  OJ L 403, p. 18.


title: Case F-125/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/37

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-125/13)
   2014/C 129/46
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the appraisal report for 2012, covering the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2012, and of the objectives set for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2013, and claim for damages

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicant’s appraisal report of 15 March 2013 covering the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2012;

               —

               annul the objectives set for the applicant by OHIM in respect of the period January to December 2013;

               —

               order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case C-15/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam
   (Case C-15/05)
   (2005/C 82/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands) of 28 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Kawasaki Motors Europe NV and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 2518/98 (1)of 23 November 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1998 L 315) valid in so far as the new, four-wheel all terrain vehicles described at point 5 of the Annex thereto are classified as a vehicle designed for the transport of persons within the meaning of subheading 8703 21 of the CCT?

               2.

               If the regulation is invalid, can the CCT be interpreted as meaning that the goods at issue can be classified under one of the subheadings of heading 8701 90 of the CCT?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2518/98 of 23 November 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1998 L 315, p. 3).


title: Case C-489/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-133/07: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/15

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-133/07: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-489/11 P)
   2011/C 347/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (represented by: R. Denton, Solicitor, J. J Vyavaharkar, Solicitor, K. Haegeman, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses Melco's application before the General Court,

               —

               Annul those articles of the decision which have not already been annulled by the judgment, to the extent that they apply to Melco and to TMT&D for the period for which Melco shares joint and several liability with Toshiba for the activities of TMT&D,

               —

               In any event, order that the Commission pays its own costs and Melco's costs in connection with these proceedings and those before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court has made significant legal errors in assessing the evidence regarding the existence of the alleged ‘common understanding’:

               —

               The General Court distorts the information in relation to the existence of the ‘common understanding’.

               —

               The General Court has failed to apply the correct standard for review of evidence and misapplied the case law principle that statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant must in principle be regarded as particularly reliable.

               —

               The General Court has misapplied the case law on standard and weighting of evidence in concluding that Mr. M's statement is credible and of probative value.

               —

               The General Court misapplies the law on corroboration to Fuji's reply to the Statement of Objections.

               —

               The General Court has failed to consider the overall effect of the individual breaches by the Commission of Melco's rights of defence and right to a fair hearing.

               —

               The General Court has breached Melco's rights of defence, in particular the presumption of innocence, by requiring Melco to prove a negative to show that it did not commit an infringement.

               —

               The General Court has breached the presumption of innocence and misapplied legal principles by refusing to consider the alternative plausible explanation.

         The appellant also submits that the General Court has made serious legal errors in assessing the purported duration of the alleged infringement:

               —

               The General Court has failed to prove the purported duration of the alleged infringement to the requisite legal standard.


title: Case F-5/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2013 — Bogusz v Frontex (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Frontex staff — Amendment to the conditions under which the probationary period progressed laid down in Article 14 of the CEOS — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Setting objectives — Ground raised for the first time at the hearing)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2013 — Bogusz v Frontex
   (Case F-5/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Frontex staff - Amendment to the conditions under which the probationary period progressed laid down in Article 14 of the CEOS - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Setting objectives - Ground raised for the first time at the hearing)
   2013/C 252/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bogusz (Dobroszyce, Poland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Frontex (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for the annulment of the decision of Frontex imposing a penalty on the applicant and the decision dismissing him.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Bogusz;

               3.

               Orders Mr Bogusz to bear three quarters of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p.29.


title: Joined Cases C-508/15 and C-509/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15) v Land Berlin (References for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 7, first paragraph — Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Conditions — No need for the Turkish worker to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State for the first three years of the residence of a family member)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15) v Land Berlin
   (Joined Cases C-508/15 and C-509/15) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 7, first paragraph - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State - Conditions - No need for the Turkish worker to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State for the first three years of the residence of a family member))
   (2017/C 053/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sidika Ucar (C-508/15), Recep Kilic (C-509/15)

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7, first paragraph, first indent, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association must be interpreted as meaning that that provision confers a right of residence in the host Member State on a family member of a Turkish worker, who has been authorised to enter that Member State, for the purposes of family reunification, and who, from his entry into the territory of that Member State, has lived with that Turkish worker, even if the period of at least three years during which the latter is duly registered as belonging to the labour force does not immediately follow the arrival of the family member concerned in the host Member State, but is subsequent to it.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-210/08 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 January 2009 — Sebirán S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), El Coto de Rioja S.A. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark Coto D’Arcis — Opposition by the proprietor of word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/18

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 January 2009 — Sebirán S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), El Coto de Rioja S.A.
   (Case C-210/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative mark Coto D’Arcis - Opposition by the proprietor of word marks COTO DE IMAZ and EL COTO - Partial refusal to register)
   2009/C 113/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Sebirán S.L. (represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent), El Coto de Rioja S.A. (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, abogados)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04 Sebirán v OHIM and El Coto de Rioja in which the Court dismissed the application of Sebirán S.L. for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 June 2004 (Case R 550/2003-2)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Sebirán S.L. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case C-110/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court): Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Scope of Article 19)

text:
No C 252/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 10 June 1997                                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-3 92/95 : European Parliament v. Council of the
                      European Union ( ! )                                                     of 12 June 1997
(Nationals of third countries — Visas — Legislative                   in Case C-l 10/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
   procedure — Consultation of the European Parliament)               from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division,
                                                                      Patents Court): Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.
                         ( 97/C 252/06 )                              Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade
                                                                                Marks (')
                 (Language of the case: French)                       (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary
                                                                      protection certificate for medicinal products — Scope of
                                                                                Article 19)
                                                                                97/C 252/07 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-392/95 : European Parliament, (Agents: Johann                              (Language of the case: English)
Schoo and Jose-Luis Rufas Quintana ) v. Council of the
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul Jacque and Michael
Bishop ), supported by French Republic ( Agents : Catherine
de Salins and Anne de Bourgoing) — application for
annulment of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 2317/95 of
                                                                      In Case C-l 10/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
25 September 1995 determining the third countries whose
nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the            of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice,
external frontiers of the Member States ( OJ No L 234,                Chancery Division, Patents Court for a preliminary ruling
3 . 10 . 1995 , p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.                in the proceedings pending before that court between
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini and J. L.                Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and Comptroller
Murray ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn                   General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks — on the
 ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                  interpretation of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, M. Wathelet and R.                    No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation
Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; D.                  of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                    products ( OJ No L 182, 2 . 7. 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1997, in which             ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
it :                                                                  of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),
                                                                      H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                      Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 1 . annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2317/95 of                      12 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
      25 September 1995 determining the third countries
      whose nationals must be in possession of visas when
      crossing the external borders of the Member States;
                                                                       The grant of a supplementary protection certificate
 2 . declares that the effects of the annulled Regulation are         pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      to be maintained until the Council of the European              No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation
      Union has adopted new legislation in the matter;                 of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
                                                                      products is, in accordance with Article 3 (b) of that
                                                                       Regulation, conditional on a valid authorization to place
                                                                       the product on the market as a medicinal product having
 3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;                              been granted in the Member State in which the application
                                                                       is submitted and at the date of that application.
 4. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 O OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .


title: Case T-93/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — St'art and Others v Commission

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/51

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — St'art and Others v Commission
   (Case T-93/14)
   2014/C 135/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application to be admissible and well founded and consequently annul the contested measure:

                           —

                           namely the decision of an unknown date formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission to reclaim the sum of EUR 140 500,01 from the company EDC in the context of the tender ‘Factor SI.2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and to require, if necessary, for that purpose, the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration and inter alia of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the principle of lawfulness, in so far as the Commission’s decision to recover the advances paid to the company EDC in the context of the project ‘C-I Factor’ and to claim the joint and several liability of the applicants, members of the consortium, in that regard is based on an unlawful decision to terminate the subsidy contract.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations. The applicants also complain that the Commission did not give them the opportunity to carry out, themselves, the obligations arising from the contract in order to remedy any possible shortcomings of the company EDC.


title: Case T-278/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark PROFLEX — Earlier national word mark PROFEX — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Inter-Union Technohandel v OHIM — Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones (PROFLEX)
   (Case T-278/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark PROFLEX - Earlier national word mark PROFEX - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 034/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Landau in der Pfalz, Germany) (represented by: K. Schmidt-Hern and A. Feutlinske, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2012 (Case R 413/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH and Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 March 2012 (Case R 413/2011-2).

               2)

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-552/10 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2010 by Usha Martin Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-119/06: Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/18

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2010 by Usha Martin Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-119/06: Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-552/10 P)
   2011/C 55/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Usha Martin Ltd (represented by: V. Akritidis, Δικηγόρος, Y. Melin, avocat, E. Petritsi, Δικηγόρος)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside in its entirety the aforementioned Judgement of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-119/06;

               2.

               Accept, by giving a final judgement itself, the application:

                           (a)

                           for annulment of Commission Decision of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire rope and cables originating in, inter alia, India (1) (the ‘Contested Decision’) insofar as it related to the Appellant and withdraws a minimum price undertaking previously in force, and

                           (b)

                           for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in, inter alia, India (2) (the ‘Contested Regulation’) insofar as it relates to the Appellant and gives effect to the Contested Decision withdrawing a minimum price undertaking previously held by the Appellant;

                     or, in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court.

               3.

               Order the Council and the Commission, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellant in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court committed errors in law at paragraphs 44 to 56 of the contested Judgement, in particular in finding that the lawfulness of the Commission Decision withdrawing the acceptance of an undertaking cannot, as such, be called into question by reference to the principle of proportionality by erroneously holding that: (i) the proportionality principle does not apply to the decision to withdraw an undertaking because such a decision is equivalent to the imposition of duties per se; and (ii) any breach is sufficient in itself to trigger withdrawal without such withdrawal being subject to the proportionality principle test.
   The appellant also submits that the General Court erroneously assessed the facts of the case and heavily distorted them when it held that ‘it is common ground between the parties that there was no compliance with the undertaking’ insofar as the said statement erroneously implies admittance by the Appellant of a breach of the undertaking, quod non, in the sense of Article 8 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.
   The applicant submits that the General Court erroneously concluded that the lawfulness of the withdrawal of the undertaking cannot be called into question by reference to the principle of proportionality either on the basis that any breach is sufficient to trigger withdrawal or by associating the withdrawal measure with a measure of imposing duties. In effect, the General Court erroneously considers that the principle of proportionality never applies at the level of withdrawal of an undertaking and fails to apply the test of ‘manifest inappropriateness’ of a measure, contrary to the established case law of the European Courts and contrary to the introductory recitals of the contested Judgement in particular paragraphs 44 to 47. The General Court erroneously concludes that withdrawal of an undertaking per se cannot be called into question as regards its lawfulness by virtue of the general principle of proportionality. In addition, by erroneously holding that there was common ground between the parties that there was no compliance with the undertaking, implying that there was breach of an undertaking in the sense of Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the General Court has manifestly distorted the facts of the case, as argued by the Appellant, and has therefore, erred in law by erroneously appraising the arguments of the Appellant.

      (1)  OJ L 22, p. 54

      (2)  OJ L 22, p. 1


title: Case T-100/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 January 2009 by Georgi Kerelov against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/40

         Appeal brought on 12 January 2009 by Georgi Kerelov against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission
   (Case T-100/08 P)
   (2009/C 69/92)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by A. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission;

               —

               Grant the applicant the form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present appeal, the applicant is seeking annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission dismissing as manifestly inadmissible the action by which the applicant sought annulment of the decision of the director of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to transmit to the applicant information and documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/46/06.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant relies on several pleas in law alleging or for:

               —

               infringement of the principle of administrative procedure inasmuch as the Tribunal considered that the initiating application did not put forward any pleas in law without ascertaining of its own motion whether the decision contested at first instance was unlawful, without limiting itself to the complaints put forward by the applicant;

               —

               infringement of the right of due process and of the principle of the impartiality of the Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's action as manifestly inadmissible without permitting him to correct his application at a point in time when the applicant could no longer bring a new action in accordance with the rules, since the time-limit for bringing actions had expired;

               —

               infringement of the principles of the right to be heard by a court and of the public nature of the proceedings, inasmuch as no hearing took place;

               —

               infringement of the principle of procedural fairness inasmuch as the Tribunal did not hear the applicant on the issue of the inadmissibility of his action;

               —

               infringement of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance inasmuch as the Tribunal has, in reality, introduced a ‘crystallisation of the contentious debate’ rule by considering that the application contained no pleas in law;

               —

               verification, of the Court's own motion, of whether the Tribunal committed any other infringements of the applicable rules of law.


title: Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer against the Council of the European Union (Case T-188/98)

text:
C 71/28               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
    discriminatory features regarding Spanish producers of         documents of the Centre for Information, Discussion and
    olive oil since a national guaranteed quantity has been        Exchange on Asylum (CIREA), which were requested
    fixed for Spain which falls far short of the yields of         pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    the last two years, and for Italy a national guaranteed        1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    quantity has been fixed which substantially exceeds its        documents requested were as follows:
    production in the last marketing year. Similarly, the
    regulation discriminates against olive oil as a
    Mediterranean product as compared with other                   (a) Common Foreign and Security Policy reports, analyses
    continental products covered by market organisations.              or evaluations for the years 1994 up to and including
    Finally, the reform at issue is not based on common                1998 which had been drawn up by the CIREA or in
    criteria or uniform calculation methods.                           connection with the CIREA, with regard to the
                                                                       situation in those third countries or regions from
                                                                       which a large number of asylum-seekers originate or
Ð Breach of the principle of proportionality. Attention is             in which they reside;
    drawn in particular to the abolition of the export
    regime, which the applicant describes as manifestly
    disproportionate.                                              (b) any reports of joint missions or reports supplied to the
                                                                       CIREA by one or more Member States, concerning
                                                                       missions to third countries by such Member State or
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the right to                  States;
property and infringement of the principle of freedom to
engage in an economic activity.
                                                                   (c) a list drawn up by the CIREA or in connection with
                                                                       the CIREA of those contact persons who are involved
(1) OJ L 210, 20.7.1998, p. 92.                                        with asylum cases in the Member States, together with
                                                                       any changes made to that list subsequently.
                                                                   The applicant submits that the refusal by the Council to
                                                                   grant access to the documents requested infringes
Action brought on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer
         against the Council of the European Union                 Ð Council Decision 93/731/EC, and more in particular
                                                                       articles 4(1) and 1(2) thereof,
                       (Case T-188/98)
                        (1999/C 71/53)
                                                                   Ð the obligation to state reasons and
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð the fundamental principle of Community law that
                                                                       European citizens should be granted the widest and
An action against the Council of the European Union was                fullest possible access to the EU Institutions'
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             documents.
Communities on 4 December 1998 by Aldo Kuijer,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and FreÂdeÂric P. Louis,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Me Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Action brought on 15 December 1998 by Micro Leader
                                                                   Business (M.L.B.) against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð annul the contested decision whereby the Council
                                                                                (Case T-198/98)
    refuses to grant access to the document requested by
    the applicant;                                                                        (1999/C 71/54)
Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant                         (Language of the case: French)
    to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
    First Instance, including the costs of any intervening
    parties.                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 December
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                1998 by Micro Leader Business (M.L.B.), whose registered
                                                                   office is at Aulnay sous Bois (France), represented by
                                                                   Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar, with an
The applicant seeks the annulment of a refusal by the              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Council of the European Union to grant access to certain           Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.


title: Case C-239/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 May 2011 by Siemens AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-110/07 Siemens AG v European Commission

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/13

         Appeal brought on 19 May 2011 by Siemens AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-110/07 Siemens AG v European Commission
   (Case C-239/11 P)
   2011/C 226/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Siemens AG (represented by: Drs I. Brinker, C. Steinle, M. Hörster, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               1.

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 (Case T-110/07) in so far as the appellant is adversely affected by that judgment;

               2.

               Partially annul the Commission Decision of 24 January 2007 (COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as it concerns the appellant,
               In the alternative, cancel or reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in that decision;

               3.

               In the alternative to the second head of claim, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law;

               4.

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the appellant in respect of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the General Court by which that court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear).
   The appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal in total:

               First of all, the General Court infringed the fundamental right to a fair hearing (Article 6 ECHR in conjunction with Article 6(3) TEU and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and the rights of the defence (Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) in that it based its finding that the appellant had participated in the cartel in the period from 22 April to 1 September 1999 conclusively on the testimony of a witness, without having given the appellant the possibility of questioning that witness.

               Secondly, the General Court in concluding that the appellant had participated in the cartel in the period from 22 April to 1 September 1999 distorted evidence and failed to have regard to common experience. The General Court therefore wrongly assumed that the appellant had participated in the cartel in the period from 22 April to 1 September 1999 and determined the duration of the infringement incorrectly.

               Thirdly, the General Court wrongly held that the rules on limitation of actions did not apply to the period before 22 April 1999 and incorrectly assumed that there was a single and continuous infringement.

               Fourthly, the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment in that it approved of the Commission’s use of different reference years in establishing the relative weight of the undertakings which participated in the infringement and of the resulting erroneous classification of the appellant according to Section 1A of the Guidelines on fines.

               Fifthly, the General Court did not reduce the increase in the basic amount of the fine, which is supposed to ensure that there is sufficient deterrent effect, in accordance with the difference in size between the appellant and ABB and thus infringed the principle of equal treatment.

               Sixthly, the General Court infringed Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it did not make any use of its unlimited right to review the Commission’s decisions on fines.

               Seventhly, the General Court disregarded the scope of the obligation to state reasons arising out of Article 296 TFEU (ex Article 253 EC) in that it made insufficient demands in respect of the requirements arising from the obligation to state reasons applicable to the calculation of the deterrent multiplier.


title: Case T-148/10: Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/41

         Action brought on 25 March 2010 — Hynix Semiconductor v Commission
   (Case T-148/10)
   2010/C 148/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (Icheon-si, Korea) (represented by: A. Woodgate and O. Heinisch, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/38.636 — Rambus, dated 9 December 2009;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/38.636 — Rambus relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFUE and Article 54 EEA, concerning the claiming of potentially abusive royalties for the use of certain patents for “Dynamic Random Access Memory” (DRAM). By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Rambus certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is the competitor of Rambus and it lodged a complaint for the initiation of proceedings against it.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.
   First, the applicant argues that the Commission violated Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 by choosing the procedure set out in this article where its concerns related to a serious violation of Article 102 TFUE to the extent that it intended to impose a fine. Further, it claims that there were no procedural savings in applying Article 9. In the applicant’s opinion, the commitments made biding by the Commission were manifestly inappropriate given the facts of the infringement in stake and it submits therefore that the Commission violated Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, Article 102 TFUE and principle of sound (impartial) administration by accepting Rambus commitments. The applicant further submits that by applying incorrect proportionality test without applying the conditions set out in Article 9 itself and by misstating certain concerns and making erroneous conclusions as to whether the commitments deal with its concerns, the Commission erred in reaching the conclusion that there are no longer grounds for action. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to give reasons as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the commitments and therefore committed a serious error of assessment.
   Second, the applicant argues that the Commission misused its powers under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003.
   Third, it claims that the Commission committed procedural errors when adopting the contested decision by not using its powers under Regulation 1/2003 and not further investigating the question of remedy adequately.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1


title: Case T-8/02: Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 109/48              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG                   Grounds of claim:             Violation of Article 43, Section 2
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                  of Regulation 40/94 (1) since there
                             Market                                                                   was no satisfactory proof of the
                                                                                genuine use of the opposing
                                                                                trademark and violation of
                          (Case T-8/02)                                                               Article 8, Section 1 b) of Regu-
                                                                                lation 40/94 since there is no
                                                                                danger of confusion.
                        (2002/C 109/95)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                  (Language of the case: English)                           Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation
AG, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner Bolte &
Partner, Munich (Germany).
                                                                        Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Agrofair Benelux
                                                                        BV, Volta River Estates Limited, SH Pratt & Co (Bananas)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Ltd and M W Mack Limited against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      29 October 2001 in case R 418/2001-1 relating to                                            (Case T-14/02)
      Opposition Proceedings no. B 97230 and Community
      trade mark application no. 50229 ‘Colette Zapf Creation
      Kombi Collection’                                                                          (2002/C 109/96)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Zapf Creation AG                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
munity trade mark:                                                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 30 January 2002 by Agrofair
                                                                        Benelux BV, Volta River Estates Limited, SH Pratt & Co
The Community trade           The figurative mark ‘Colette Zapf         (Bananas) Ltd and M W Mack Limited, represented by Mr Phil-
mark concerned:               Creation Kombi Collection’ for            ippe Vlaemminck and Mr Pieter De Wael of Vlaemminck &
                              certain goods in class 28                 Partners, Ghent (Belgium).
Proprietor of the right to    Jesmar S.A.
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                            —    annul Article 1, third indent and Article 2(4) of Com-
                                                                             mission Regulation (EC) No 2294/2001 of 26 November
Trade mark or sign            The Spanish word mark ‘Colette’                2001 fixing certain indicative quantities and individual
asserted by way of oppo-      for certain goods in class 28                  ceilings for the issue of licences for imports of bananas
sition in the opposition                                                     into the Community for the first quarter of 2002 under
proceedings:                                                                 the tariff quotas to the extent that the applicants can only
                                                                             import a maximum of 8 % of their annual allocation
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition by                 during the first quarter of 2002;
sition Division:              Jesmar S.A.
                                                                        —    order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant
Decision of the Board of      Admission of the appeal lodged                 companies in the present proceedings including the costs
Appeal:                       by Jesmar S.A.                                 of the interim proceedings.


title: Case T-171/08: Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/43

         Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
   (Case T-171/08)
   (2008/C 171/82)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Claus, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2007 in the form of the letter of 7 March 2008 confirming approval of a payment in the amount of EUR 9 215,20 in the context of the ‘Traumatised refugees in the EU’ project by reason of ‘Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073’ in so far as the applicant was denied payment of more than EUR 9 215,20;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the European Refugee Fund. By letter of 30 October 2007, confirmed by letter of 7 March 2008, the defendant sent the applicant a revised calculation of the payment to the applicant that was still outstanding, in which part of the applicant's costs were deemed to be ineligible for support. The applicant brought the present action against the Commission's letter of 7 March 2008.
   The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested decision infringes the duty to give reasons since the defendant changed the grounds for its decision on numerous occasions. In addition, there has been an infringement of the fundamental principle of the right to a fair hearing. Finally, the facts of the case were assessed in a manner incompatible with the regulations of the Grant Agreement and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-551/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/36

         Action brought on 15 October 2013 — Radecki v OHIM — Vamed (AKTIVAMED)
   (Case T-551/13)
   2013/C 367/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Radecki (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vamed AG (Vienna, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2013 (Case R 365/2012-1);

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Michael Radecki

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AKTIVAMED’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 11 and 44 — Community trade mark No 8 958 886

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vamed AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian figurative marks and international registration ‘VAMED’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 28, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Joined Cases C-22/13, C-61/13 to C-63/13 and C-418/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 November 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli, Corte costituzionale — Italy) — Raffaella Mascolo (C-22/13), Alba Forni (C-61/13), Immacolata Racca (C-62/13) v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli (C-63/13), Carla Napolitano, Salvatore Perrella, Gaetano Romano, Donatella Cittadino, Gemma Zangari v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (C-418/13) (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Education — Public sector — Temporary replacements in respect of posts that are vacant and unfilled, pending the completion of competitive selection procedures — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts — Penalties — Prohibition of conversion into an employment relationship of indefinite duration — No right to compensation for damage)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 November 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli, Corte costituzionale — Italy) — Raffaella Mascolo (C-22/13), Alba Forni (C-61/13), Immacolata Racca (C-62/13) v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli (C-63/13), Carla Napolitano, Salvatore Perrella, Gaetano Romano, Donatella Cittadino, Gemma Zangari v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (C-418/13)
   (Joined Cases C-22/13, C-61/13 to C-63/13 and C-418/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Education - Public sector - Temporary replacements in respect of posts that are vacant and unfilled, pending the completion of competitive selection procedures - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts - Penalties - Prohibition of conversion into an employment relationship of indefinite duration - No right to compensation for damage))
   (2015/C 026/03)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring courts

   Tribunale di Napoli, Corte costituzionale

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Raffaella Mascolo (C-22/13), Alba Forni (C-61/13), Immacolata Racca (C-62/13), Fortuna Russo (C-63/13), Carla Napolitano, Salvatore Perrella, Gaetano Romano, Donatella Cittadino, Gemma Zangari (C-418/13)

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (C-22/13, C-61/13, C-62/13), Comune di Napoli (C-63/13), Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (C-418/13)

      Interveners: Federazione Gilda-Unams, Federazione Lavoratori della Conoscenza (FLC CGIL), Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL), C-22/13, C-61/13 to C-62/13

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, pending the completion of competitive selection procedures for the recruitment of tenured staff of schools administered by the State, authorises the renewal of fixed-term employment contracts to fill posts of teachers and administrative, technical and auxiliary staff that are vacant and unfilled without stating a definite period for the completion of those procedures and while excluding any possibility, for those teachers and staff, of obtaining compensation for any damage suffered on account of such a renewal. It appears, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring courts, that such legislation, first, does not permit objective and transparent criteria to be identified in order to verify whether the renewal of those contracts actually responds to a genuine need, is capable of achieving the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose, and second, does not contain any other measure intended to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

      OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

      OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-323/11: Action brought on 22 June 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/3

         Action brought on 22 June 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-323/11)
   2011/C 282/05
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Hadjiyiannis and U. Nielsen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to publish the final river basin management plans by 22 December 2009 and by failing to send the Commission copies thereof by 22 March 2010 and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 13(1), (2) and (6) of the Directive provides that the Member States were to adopt the laws and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 22 December 2009 and to send the Commission copies thereof by 22 March 2010.
   Since the Commission is not in possession of any information which enables it to establish that the necessary provisions have been adopted, the Commission must proceed on the assumption that Denmark has not yet adopted those provisions and has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1, 22.12.2000.


title: Case T-62/15: Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/37

      Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)
      (Case T-62/15)
      (2015/C 107/48)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MITOCHRON’ — Application for registration No 11 200 078

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 in Case R 508/2014-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Admit the complaint;

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Inexistence of a risk of confusion between the trade marks involved in the dispute.


title: Case T-450/09: Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Three-dimensional representation of a cubic toy)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/34

         Action brought on 6 November 2009 — Simba Toys v OHIM — Seven Towns (Three-dimensional representation of a cubic toy)
   (Case T-450/09)
   2010/C 11/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2009 in case R 1526/2008-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings and those incurred before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A three-dimensional representation of a cubic toy for goods in class 28

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b),(c) and (e) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the absolute grounds for refusal presented by the applicant; Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to state reasons why it denied the ground for revocation under Article 7(1)(c) of the said regulation; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to identify fully the features of the trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity and failed to take into account certain features of such trade mark.


title: Case C-340/16: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 9(1) — Article 11(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Direct action by the injured party against the insurer — Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved — Subrogation)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA
   (Case C-340/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 9(1) - Article 11(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Direct action by the injured party against the insurer - Action brought by the employer, a public-law institution, statutory assignee of the rights of its employee, against the insurer of the vehicle involved - Subrogation))
   (2017/C 300/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — KABEG

      Defendant: Mutuelles du Mans assurances — MMA IARD SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read together with Article 11(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an employer, established in one Member State, which continued to pay the salary of its employee absent as the result of a road traffic accident and to which have passed the employee’s rights with regard to the company insuring the civil liability resulting from the vehicle involved in that accident, which is established in a second Member State, may, in the capacity of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 11(2), sue the insurance company before the courts of the first Member State, where a direct action is permitted.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Action brought on 5 April 1995 by Sébastien Rozand-Lambiotte against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-96/95)

text:
No C 137/36         f EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
respectively, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                 the list of successful candidates in competition B/228 , for
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an            which no remedy was provided by the decisions taken by the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire         Council .
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener .
                                                                      Finally, they claim that the decisions of the appointing
                                                                      authority rejecting their request of 15 March 1994 and their
The applicants claim that the Court should :                          complaint of 4 January 1995 seeking compensation for the
                                                                      damage resulting from the unlawful act annulled by the
— annul the Council decision of 15 June 1994 expressly                Court of First Instance constitute breaches of Article 176 of
    rejecting their claim for compensation for additional             the EC Treaty and therefore further instances of
    harm suffered ,                                                   maladministration for which they seek compensation.
— annul, so far as necessary, the Council decisions of
    9 June 1994 and 4 January 1995 ,
— order the defendant:
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 1995 by Sebastien
                                                                      Rozand-Lambiotte against the Commission of the
    — to pay the sum of Bfrs 500 000 ( five hundred                                      European Communities
        thousand ) to each applicant, by way of
        compensation for material damage suffered,                                           ( Case T-96/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/78 )
    — to pay the symbolic sum of ECU 1 to each applicant
         by way of compensation for the non-material                                 (Language of the case: French)
         damage sufferd by them,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
    — to pay the costs .                                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1995 by
                                                                      Sebastien Rozand-Lambiotte, residing at La Javie ( France ),
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                      Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicants state that they were admitted to the tests in          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
internal Council competition B/228 (a competition designed            Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
to enable officials in grade CI to have their posts reclassified
as B5 ), but the selection board decided not to include them          The applicant claims that the Court should :
on the list of successful candidates . Following an action for
annulment brought against that decision, the Court of First           — annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 1994
Instance gave a judgment on 11 February 1993 annulling                    dismissing the applicant on the expiry of his
the action taken following the decisions concerning                       probationary period,
admission to the tests . In order to comply with the
judgment, the Council organized competition B/228 bis,                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
which was of the same kind and involved the same
procedures for marking the tests as competition B/228 . The
selection board included the applicants on the list of                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
successful candidates and their posts were reclassified as B5
with effect from 1 January 1994 .                                     The applicant maintains, first, that the contested decision
                                                                      was adopted in contravention of his right to a fair hearing
                                                                      and of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations, and that it
The applicants maintain that the irregularities committed by          did not satisfy the obligation to provide a statement of
the selection board for competition B/228 prevented them              reasons . He considers that the facts brought to his
from being included on the list of successful candidates and          knowledge, such as they were, were incapable of
therefore from having their posts reclassified as B5 in 1990          constituting the legal basis for a decision as serious as one of
or, at the latest, in 1991 ; as a result, they lost three years'      dismissal .
seniority in grade B5 . Moreover, their chances of securing
rapid promotion to grade B4 and then to grade B3 have been            He also pleads infringement of Article 34 of the Staff
considerably diminished by the budgetary restrictions                 Regulations, claiming that the work carried out in the
imposed since 1991 . They conclude that the effects of the            matter by the Reports Committee followed a course which
irregularities committed by the selection board were                  blatantly disregarded the rules in force within the
perpetuated as far as they were concerned, despite the                Commission, those rules having been laid down in order to
measures taken by the Council to comply with the judgment             ensure the impartiality of the members of the various
of the Court of Justice and seek redress for the material             committees and the objectivity of the work done by them.
damage suffered .                                                     He concludes from the foregoing that the opinion arrived at
                                                                      by the Committee was adopted following an improper
The applicants also maintain that they suffered                       procedure and that the contested decision is unlawful
non-material damage through not having been entered on                inasmuch as it is based, in particular, on that opinion.
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95         I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 137/37
The applicant further maintains that his probationary                   Removal from the register of Case T-5 19/93 ( J )
period did not proceed under normal conditions and that his                                 {■95/C 137/79 )
hierarchical superiors did not provide him with the specific
training essential for the performance of his employment,
nor even with the appropriate advice and necessary                               (Language of the case: English)
instructions . Consequently, they manifestly failed to fulfil
their duty to have regard for his welfare and interests .
                                                                   By order of 20 March 1995 the President of the Second
                                                                   Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First
Lastly, the applicant asserts that there has been a manifest       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
error of assessment, that the statement of reasons given is        from the register of Case T-5 19/93 : Comafrica SpA, Dole
inconsistent and that it is impossible to asses whether that       Fresh Fruit Europa Ltd & Co. and Dole Fresh Fruit
statement is well founded .                                        International Limited v. Council of the European Union and
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 .


title: Case F-82/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 1 December 2010 — Nolin v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Withdrawal of merit and priority points)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/61

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 1 December 2010 — Nolin v European Commission
   (Case F-82/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Withdrawal of merit and priority points)
   2011/C 30/118
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M.J. Baquero Cruz, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 19 December 2008 concerning the withdrawal of the applicant’s merit and priority points.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nolin to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009, p. 37.


title: Case T-159/09: Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/44

         Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-159/09)
   2009/C 153/86
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. Magalhães e Menezes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 16 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s request for remission of import duties in the sum of EUR 41 271,09 and ordering that that amount be entered into the accounts a posteriori;

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Between September 2003 and February 2005, the applicant imported a number of consignments of frozen prawns from Indonesia, for which it sought remission of import duties pursuant to Articles 220(2)(b), 236 and 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code. (1)

   The applicant submits that the Commission infringed, at the very least, those provisions in so far as: first, it made no observations on any of the arguments put forward by the applicant in its request for remission of import duties; secondly, the reasons given by the Commission were inadequate, misleading and incomprehensible; thirdly, it misinterpreted the error made by the Indonesian authorities themselves; fourthly and last, the Commission deemed to be proved facts which are not actually proved, the burden of proving which fell, subsequently, to the bodies involved in the procedure and not the applicant.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 97, p. 38.


title: Case T-89/13: Action brought on 18 February 2013 — Calestep v ECHA

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/33

         Action brought on 18 February 2013 — Calestep v ECHA
   (Case T-89/13)
   2013/C 108/82
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Calestep, SL (Estepa, Espana) (represented by: E. Cabezos Mateos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should, applying all the steps of the procedure, uphold the application and annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to which the application relates.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings, as a result of its classification as a small company, has been paying the reduced fee referred to in Article 74(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6), which in turn refer to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).
   Having made checks, the ECHA considered that the applicant cannot be considered to be a small company, as it is part of a group. Upon finding that that company did not fulfil the requirements, the defendant ordered the applicant to pay the balance of the full fee due for a medium-sized company, as well as an administrative charge.
   In support of its action, the applicant invokes a single plea in law based on failure to comply with two of the requirements of Article 2(2) of the Annex to the above Recommendation.
   It is suggested in that regard that in order to prevent a company from being considered a small company, it is not enough that that company has more than 50 employees; it is necessary also to show that one of the other requirements under that provision is satisfied, as the provision contains the conjunction ‘and’. This has not been done in the present case.


title: Case F-121/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — Strack v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official)

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-121/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official)
   2011/C 72/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — Annulment of several Commission decisions denying immediate and comprehensive access to different data and documents concerning the applicant. Claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 50.


title: Case T-417/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 — Agriculture — Common organisation of the market in wine — Set of rules governing the use of the list of vine varieties and their synonyms — Limitation in time on use — Action brought by a sub-State body — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2007 — Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission
   (Case T-417/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 - Agriculture - Common organisation of the market in wine - Set of rules governing the use of the list of vine varieties and their synonyms - Limitation in time on use - Action brought by a sub-State body - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 96/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia (represented by: E. Bevilacqua and F. Capelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Righini, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: P. Gottfried, Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the provision limiting up to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘Tocai friulano ’which is set out, in the form of an explanatory note, in item 103 in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Hungary is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case T-163/09: Action brought on 16 April 2009 — Martinet v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/56

         Action brought on 16 April 2009 — Martinet v Commission
   (Case T-163/09)
   2009/C 141/113
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Yvon Martinet (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-L. Fourgoux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting Mr Martinet’s candidature for the post of alternate member of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency;

               —

               Order the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Pre-selection Committee for the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency, to carry out a genuine and in-depth examination of the file containing Mr Martinet’s application, as reparation in kind for the damage suffered as a result of the loss of an opportunity;

               —

               In any case, order the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General, Pre-selection Committee for the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency, to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision rejecting his candidature for the post of alternate member of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on the ground that his candidature had not been considered, since it had not been received by the section responsible for the selection process, as a result of being sent to the Vice-President of the Commission, Mr G. Verheugen, at an address different from the exact address stated in the call for expression of interest, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2008 C 41A, p. 8).
   In support of its action, the applicant, with regard to the application for annulment, claims that:

               —

               the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons which constitutes an essential formality which must be complied with;

               —

               the contested decision is based on a substantive factual inaccuracy, the candidature having been sent to the address stated in the call for candidatures;

               —

               the principles of sound administration and of equal opportunities for candidates were infringed, because the applicant’s candidature was not examined.