title: Case C-271/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 15(2) — Exemption for supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community — Conditions for exemption not fulfilled — Proof of export falsified by the purchaser — Supplier acting with due commercial care)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG v Finanzamt Malchin

   (Case C-271/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 15(2) - Exemption for supplies of goods for export to a destination outside the Community - Conditions for exemption not fulfilled - Proof of export falsified by the purchaser - Supplier acting with due commercial care)
   (2008/C 92/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Netto Supermarkt GmbH & Co. OHG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Malchin
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Community law on VAT, in particular Article 15(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Reimbursement of VAT on supplies of goods for export obtained on the basis of forged documents — Exemption on grounds of fairness
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 15(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from granting an exemption from value added tax on the supply of goods for export to a destination outside the European Community, where the conditions for such an exemption are not met, but the taxable person was not able to recognise — even by exercising due commercial care — that they were not met, because the export proofs provided by the purchaser had been forged.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2007.


title: Case F-114/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/27

         Action brought on 26 October 2011 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-114/11)
   2012/C 6/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to regard certain financial assistance from a Member State to students in higher education as an allowance of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct this financial assistance from the education allowance granted to the applicant, and annulment of the decision to recover amounts unduly received;

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the two decisions that are implicit in the salary statement for March 2011 and adversely affect the applicant, namely (i) the decision to deduct the amount of financial assistance paid by the Centre de Documentation et d’Information sur l’Enseignement Supérieur de Luxembourg from the education allowance received by the applicant and (ii) the decision to recover amounts unduly received concerning the amount of education allowances received between October 2010 and February 2011;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the resulting arrears of remuneration together with corresponding default interest, calculated from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-144/10: Action brought on 29 March 2010 — Space Beach Club v OHIM — Flores Gómez (SpS space of sound)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/49

         Action brought on 29 March 2010 — Space Beach Club v OHIM — Flores Gómez (SpS space of sound)
   (Case T-144/10)
   2010/C 134/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Space Beach Club SA (San Jorge (Ibiza), Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM and refuse registration of Community trade mark application No 5683693;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the verbal component ‘SpS space of sound’ (Application No 5 683 693) for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 41.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative marks which contain the word element ‘SPACE’ (Nos 2 021 783, 2 610 677, 2 644 838, 2 644 839, 2 654 511, 2 694 428, 2 583 870, 3 175 742 and 4 529 814) for goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 41.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Action dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Joined Cases C-621/10 and C-129/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) — Balkan and Sea Properties ADSITs (C-621/10), Provadinvest OOD (C-129/11) v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 73 and 80(1) — Sale of immovable property between connected companies — Value of the transaction — National legislation providing that for transactions between connected persons the taxable amount for VAT purposes is the open market value of the transaction)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) — Balkan and Sea Properties ADSITs (C-621/10), Provadinvest OOD (C-129/11) v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Joined Cases C-621/10 and C-129/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 73 and 80(1) - Sale of immovable property between connected companies - Value of the transaction - National legislation providing that for transactions between connected persons the taxable amount for VAT purposes is the open market value of the transaction)
   2012/C 174/15
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Balkan and Sea Properties ADSITs (C-621/10), Provadinvest OOD (C-129/11)

      Defendants: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Varna — Bulgaria — Interpretation of Article 80(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Connected companies concluding a contract for the sale of immovable property — Provisions of national legislation that for transactions between connected persons the taxable amount for the purposes of VAT is the open market value of the transaction — Methods of determining open market values — Exclusion of the right to deduct VAT where the calculation of tax is unlawful

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 80(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of application it sets out are exhaustive and, consequently, that national legislation cannot on the basis of that provision provide that the taxable amount is to be the open market value of the transaction in cases other than those listed in that provision, in particular where the taxable person has a full right of deduction of value added tax, which is for the national court to ascertain.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 80(1) of Directive 2006/112 confers on the companies concerned the right to rely on it directly to oppose the application of provisions of national legislation that are incompatible with that provision. If it is not possible to interpret the national legislation in conformity with Article 80(1) of the directive, the national court should disapply any provision of that legislation that is contrary to it.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011
      OJ C 145, 14.5.2011


title: Case T-225/13: Action brought on 12 April 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/13

         Action brought on 12 April 2013 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-225/13)
   2013/C 178/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: T&L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission and the European Union, represented in the present case by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul (i) Regulations (EU) No 131/2013 (1) and No 281/2013 (2) laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2012/2013; (ii) Regulations (EU) No 194/2013 (3) and 332/2013 (4) fixing an allocation coefficients for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy; (iii) Regulation (EU) No 36/2013 (5) opening a standing invitation to tender for the 2012/2013 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN codes 1701 14 10 and 1701 99 10 at a reduced customs duty; and (iv) Regulation (EU) No 67/2013 (6) on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender, as well as Regulation (EU) No 178/2013 (7) on the minimum customs duty to be fixed in response to the second partial invitation to tender;

               —

               In the alternative, declare the plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU against Regulations (EU) No 131/2013 and No 281/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2013 admissible and well founded;

               —

               Declare Articles 186(a) and 187 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (8) illegal under Article 277 TFEU to the extent these do not correctly transpose the relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 (9);

               —

               Condemn the European Union, as represented by the Commission, to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's breach of its legal obligations and set the amount of this compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants during the period 25 June 2012 to 31 March 2013 at 184 725 960 EUR plus any ongoing losses suffered by the applicants after that date or any other amount reflecting the damage suffered or to be suffered by the applicants as further established by them in the course of this procedure especially to take due account of future damage, all the aforementioned amounts to be augmented by interest from the date of judgment by the General Court until actual payment;

               —

               Order an interest at the rate set at the time by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the General Court, be paid on the amount payable as from the date of the General Court's judgment until actual payment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination, as on the one hand, Regulations (EU) No 131/2013 and No 281/2013 provide for fixed, generally applicable 224 EUR and 172 EUR per tonne Surplus Levy — i.e. less than half to the usual 500 EUR per tonne — applying to a specific quantities (a total of 300 000 tonnes) of sugar, divided equally only between beet producer applicants. On the other hand, Regulation (EU) No 36/2013 provides for an unknown, unpredictable customs duty, applicable only to auction winners (who can be cane refiners, beet processors, or any other third party) and for an unspecified total amount.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007/absence of an appropriate legal basis, since with regard to Regulations (EU) No 131/2013 and No 281/2013, the Commission has no power whatsoever to increase quotas and is on the contrary required to impose high, dissuasive levies on the release of out-of-quota sugar on the EU market. As regards the tax auctions, the Commission clearly has no mandate or power to adopt this kind of measure, which was never envisaged in the basic legislation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of legal certainty as the Commission created a system whereby customs duties are not predictable and fixed through the application of consistent, objective criteria, but are rather determined by subjective willingness to pay (moreover of actors that are subject to very different pressures and incentives in this regard) with no actual link with the actual products being imported.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality in so far as the Commission could easily have adopted less restrictive measures to tackle the supply shortage, which would have not been taken exclusively to the detriment of importing refiners.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging violation of legitimate expectations, as the applicants were legitimately led to expect that the Commission would use the tools available in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 to restore the availability of supply of raw cane sugar for refining. The applicants were also legitimately led to expect that the Commission would preserve the balance between importing refiners and domestic sugar producers.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of diligence, care and good administration, since in managing the sugar market, the Commission repeatedly committed fundamental errors and self contradictions that demonstrate at best a lack of understanding about basic market mechanisms. For instance, its balance sheet — which constitutes one of the main tools for the content and timing of market intervention — was grossly incorrect and based on a flawed methodology. Moreover, the actions taken by the Commission were manifestly inappropriate in light of the supply shortage.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging violation of Article 39 TFEU since the Commission failed to achieve two of the objectives set out in this Treaty provision.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging violation of Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 (10), as the duties applied to white sugar are indeed only fractionally higher than for raw sugar, the difference being as low as 20 EUR per tonne. This contrasts sharply with the 80 EUR difference between the standard import duty for refined sugar (€419) and raw sugar for refining (€339) which are set out in Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011.
               In addition, in support of their request for damages, the applicants allege that the Commission exceeded gravely and manifestly the margin of discretion conferred to it by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, through its passivity and inappropriateness of action. Furthermore, the Commission failure to adopt adequate measures constitutes a manifest infringement of a rule of law ‘intended to confer rights on individuals’. The Commission violated in particular the EU general principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, proportionality, legitimate expectations and the duty of diligence, care and good administration.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 131/2013 of 15 February 2013 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during the 2012/2013 marketing year (OJ 2013 L 45, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 281/2013 of 22 March 2013 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during the 2012/2013 marketing year (OJ 2013 L 84, p. 19)

      (3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 194/2013 of 6 March 2013 fixing an allocation coefficient for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during the 2012/2013 marketing year (OJ 2013 L 64, p. 3)

      (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 332/2013 of 10 April 2013 fixing an allocation coefficient for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during the 2012/2013 marketing year (OJ 2013 L 102, p. 18)

      (5)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2013 of 18 January 2013 opening a standing invitation to tender for the 2012/2013 marketing year for imports of sugar of CN codes 1701 14 10 and 1701 99 10 at a reduced customs duty (OJ 2013 L 16, p. 7)

      (6)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 67/2013 of 24 January 2013 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the first partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2013 (OJ 2013 L 22, p. 9)

      (7)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 178/2013 of 28 February 2013 on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the second partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2013 (OJ 2013 L 58, p. 3)

      (8)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1)

      (9)  Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1)

      (10)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2011 L 282, p. 1)


C 146/46                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     21.6.2003
The applicant submits in particular that the refusal adversely                  Removal from the register of Case T-336/01 (1)
affects the rights of defence which it might invoke both against
the Italian Government (by challenging the document to which                                     (2003/C 146/82)
access was requested before the competent Italian court) and
against the Commission itself from the point at which, not                                 (Language of the case: English)
being aware of the contents of the measure to which access is
sought, the applicant is unable to rely on any errors of
appraisal which the Commission may have committed in                    By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
forming the view that it had been properly adopted.                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-336/01: EuroCommerce A.I.S.B.L. v Commission of the
( 1) See p. 43 of this Official Journal.                                European Communities.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.


title: Action brought on 5 August 1997 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-230/97)

text:
C 318/30             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
infringements not duly found to exist. In the applicant's            applicant, or where there is no national representative
view, the length of the administrative proceeding, which             organization, challenges the Council decision, set out in
could be regarded as a lack of reasonable diligence, should          Regulation ( EC ) No 1188/97, to recognize Italy as a
be considered to be a mitigating factor.                             deficit area and to fix a derived intervention price for
                                                                     white sugar produced in Italy.
Finally, the applicant pleads misapplication of Article 3 ( 1 )
of Regulation No 17 which confers on the Commission                  Owing to the fact that the derived intervention price for
only the power to prohibit abuses found to exist. The                the marketing year 1997/98 should have been fixed before
Commission may order them not to continue, as it does,               1 August 1996 , whereas the contested regulation fixed the
and not to be repeated, as it likewise does . That Article           price on the 25 June 1997, the applicant submits that the
provides no legal basis, however, for prohibiting, by way            said Regulation was adopted with unreasonable delay.
of anticipation, abuses other than the ones formally found.          Sugar manufacturers have the right to be informed in
                                                                     good time of the price at which they may sell to the
                                                                     intervention agencies the sugar produced within the quota
                                                                     and the minimum price to be paid to beet producers .
                                                                     Furthermore, the Council did not state any reasons
Action brought on 5 August 1997 by the Comite                        justifying the decision to regard Italy as a deficit area and,
Europeen des Fabricants de Sucre against the Council of              consequently, the adoption of a derived intervention price .
                    the European Union
                       ( Case T-229/97 )
                                                                     Finally, the applicant claims that the treatment of Italy as
                         ( 97/C 318/58 )                             a deficit area, when it is not, has a negative impact on the
                                                                     European industry and on the common organization of
                                                                     the market in sugar and constitutes a breach of the
               (Language of the case: English)                       principles of non-discrimination and of Community
                                                                     preference .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 August 1997 by the Comite Europeen
des Fabricants de Sucre, represented by Bernard O'Connor
and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen,
22, Rue Marie Adelaide .                                             Action brought on 5 August 1997 by Comafrica SpA
                                                                     and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  ( Case T-230/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/59 )
— pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
     declare void Article 1 ( f) of Regulation ( EC ) No 1188/
     97 of 25 June 1997 in so far as it affects the applicant                         (Language of the case: English)
     and the European sugar manufacturers; alternatively,
     declare the said provision of the regulation void erga
     omnes,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
— request the Council to hand over all impugned                       by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd &c
     documents, information and methods at its disposal               Co ., represented by Bernard O'Connor, assisted by
     for the adoption of the Regulation, with regard to the           Bonifacio Garcia Porras, with an address for service in
     decision to consider Italy a deficit area;                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 22,
                                                                      rue Marie Adelaide .
 — make any additional orders which the Court considers
     necessary, and                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should :
 — order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings .            — pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 EC, declare void
                                                                           Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97 in so far as
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       it affects the applicants, or, in the alternative declare
                                                                           the said Regulation void erga omnes, on the basis that
                                                                           the Commission has acted in breach of Article 40 ( 3 )
 The applicant, an international association made up of                    of the EC Treaty and contrary to the case-law of the
 national organizations of sugar manufacturers, as well as                 Court of Justice and denied the applicants their
 individual sugar companies, where their national                          fundamental rights to property and to pursue a
 representative organization is not a member of the                        professional trade or activity,
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/31
— pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty,                 — the loss due to the lower reference quantity in the
     order the Commission to make good any damage,                        early part of the year, and
     with interest thereon, caused to the applicants by the
     wrongful adoption of Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97,
                                                                     — the loss caused by the new Member States' arguments.
— make any additional order the Court considers
     necessary for the purposes of determining the damage
     caused to the applicants, and
                                                                     Action brought on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
                                                                         Danieau and others against the European Parliament
— declare that the Commission pay the costs incurred in
     the making of this application .                                                        ( Case T-232/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/60 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicants are members of the Dole group of                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
companies, a group engaged in the worldwide business of              before the Court of First Instance of the European
producing, processing, distributing and marketing quality            Communities on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
branded fruit products, primarily fresh fruit and                    Danieau, residing at Bertrange ( Luxembourg ), Jeremiah
vegetables and packaged fruits and nuts . The applicants             Cadogan, residing at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Madeleine
are registered as Category A operators, as defined by                Mesenburg, residing at Biwer ( Luxembourg), Rainer
Article 2 ( a ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1442/93           Moriarty, residing at Colmar-Berg ( Luxembourg), Anne-
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the                   Marie Nilles, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ), Teresa
application of the arrangements for importing bananas                Rodrigues, residing at Mondercange ( Luxembourg ),
into the Community ( OJ L 142, 12 . 6 . 1993 , p, 6 ).               Fernando Simões, residing at Munsbach ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     Jean-Louis Spellini , residing at Bascharage ( Luxembourg),
                                                                     Jeanne Pica-Borruto, residing at Thionville ( France ) and
                                                                     Nicole Schulte, residing at Leudelange ( Luxembourg),
The application concerns the administration by the                   represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique Leclercq,
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the              Ariane Tornel and Framboise Parmentier, of the Brussels
applicants' licence entitlement for the import of bananas            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
within the third-country tariff-rate quota established by            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Article 18 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of
 13 February 1993 . It arises out of the adoption by the
 Commission of an excessively severe reduction coefficient           The applicants claim that the Court should:
 based on an incorrect reference quantity figure which
illegally reduces the applicants' licence entitlement for the        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
 1997 marketing year.                                                     for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
 As a result of the incorrect reference quantities, the
                                                                     — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
 applicants were denied their legal right to import bananas
 up to the maximum of their legal entitlement. In addition,               wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
 the applicants are also denied their future entitlement to                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
 import Category A bananas for those marketing years for                   deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
 which 1997 is a reference year. This erodes and thus
 infringes the applicants' fundamental rights protected by           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 Community law, such as the right to property and the
 right to pursue a professional or trade activity. Whereas in
 Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 the Council         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 acted to ensure avoidance of erosion between Categories A
 and B, the Commission has created a system which allows              The applicants, officials of the European Parliament
 erosion of rights within each category. The loss which will          whose spouses receive a household grant, state that up
 be suffered by the applicants as a result of the                     until July 1996 the defendant deducted, pursuant to
 Commission's breach of a superior rule of law arises from:           Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of officials, the
                                                                      household grant received by their spouses from the family
                                                                      allowances to which they were entitled. In July 1996 they
 — the fact that the share of the Category A quota                    were informed that, in consequence of the judgment
      allocated to the applicants is less than it would have          delivered by the Court of First Instance on 11 June 1996
      been had the Commission calculated the reduction                in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, and having
      coefficient using correct reference quantity figures.           considered the conditions governing the award of the


title: Case C-567/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Non-exclusive licence agreement — Patent — No infringement — Obligation to pay royalties)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-567/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Non-exclusive licence agreement - Patent - No infringement - Obligation to pay royalties))
   (2016/C 335/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Genentech Inc.

      Defendants: Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition on the licensee, under a licence agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a requirement to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire period in which that agreement was in effect, in the event of the revocation or non-infringement of a licensed patent, provided that the licensee was able freely to terminate that agreement by giving reasonable notice.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case F-37/06: Action brought on  10 April 2006  — Strack v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/53

         Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-37/06)
   (2006/C 131/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Bouneaou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant's implied decision of 7 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's request that his illness should be acknowledged to be an occupational illness;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 by way of damages and interest to compensate for the material loss suffered in consequence of the decision of 7 July 2005 to reject the request;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 by way of damages and interest to compensate for the non-material loss suffered in consequence of the decision of 7 July 2005 to reject the request;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the claim for annulment, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging, by the first plea, infringement of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, by the second plea, infringement of the principle of the prohibition on arbitrary procedure, of the obligation to give reasons and abuse of powers and, by the third plea, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
   In support of the claim for damages, the applicant submits that the implied decision rejecting his request left him in a state of uncertainty and anxiety which persisted for a number of months, giving rise to consequent material and non-material loss.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-433/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln): Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH, MTK Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH (Trade mark rights — Medicinal products — Central marketing authorisation — Repackaging)

text:
C 274/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             9.11.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 19 September 2002                                                         of 19 September 2002
in Case C-433/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                        in Case C-221/01: Commission of the European Communi-
from the Landgericht Köln): Aventis Pharma Deutschland                                        ties v Kingdom of Belgium ( 1)
GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH, MTK Pharma Vertriebs-
                             GmbH (1)
                                                                            (Directive 97/33/EC — Telecommunications — Intercon-
                                                                                nection of networks — Interoperability of services)
(Trade mark rights — Medicinal products — Central market-
               ing authorisation — Repackaging)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/23)
                          (2002/C 274/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-221/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: initially
In Case C-433/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  F. van de Craen, and, subsequently, A. Snoecx): Application
EC by the Landgericht Köln (Germany) for a preliminary ruling               for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
in the proceedings pending before that court between Aventis                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
Pharma Deutschland GmbH and Kohlpharma GmbH, MTK                            with Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and
Pharma Vertriebs-GmbH, on the interpretation of Council                     of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down                     Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service
Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision                  and interoperability through application of the principles of
of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and                      Open Network Provision (ONP) (OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32) and,
establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal              in particular, with Articles 7(5), 9(3) and 14(1) and (2) thereof,
Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1) and of the rules of Community                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
law on the free movement of medicinal products, the Court                   under that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the                   F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann
Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puisso-                (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
chet and V. Skouris, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 on 19 September 2002, in which it:
given a judgment on 19 September 2002, in which it has
ruled:
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 7(5)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying                        and 9(3) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament
down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of                and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a                Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products precludes                and interoperability through application of the principles of
a medicinal product which is the subject of two separate central                  Open Network Provision (ONP), as well as Article 14(1) in
marketing authorisations, one for packs of five items and the other               conjunction with Article 12(4) thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium
for packs of 10 items, from being marketed in a package consisting                has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
of two packs of five items which have been joined together and
relabelled.                                                                 2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.


title: Case T-259/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 June 2015 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction of a central energy unit — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/53

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 June 2015 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament
   (Case T-259/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction of a central energy unit - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 302/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium) and Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Rantala, M. Mraz and F. Poilvache, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of 19 March 2015 by which the Parliament rejected the bid which the applicants had submitted following the call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 relating to the public works contract concerning Lot No 73 (central energy unit) of the ‘Project for the extension and modernisation of the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ and of the decision of the same day by which the contract at issue was awarded to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-442/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2015 by Pensa Pharma, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 June 2015 in Case T-544/12: Pensa Pharma, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/15

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2015 by Pensa Pharma, SA against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 June 2015 in Case T-544/12: Pensa Pharma, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S
   (Case C-442/15 P)
   (2015/C 414/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Pensa Pharma, SA (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferring BV, Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgement of the General Court of 3 June 2015 in joint cases T-544/12 and T-546/12,

               —

               grant the action for annulment brought by Pensa Pharma S.A. against the Board of Appeal's decisions in Case R-1883/2011-5 as well as well as Case R-1884/2011-S,

               —

               order the Office and the Other Parties to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appellant claims that the General Court committed a profound legal error in rejecting the Appellant's claim that the submissions made during the hearing before the General Court be admissible as they were not new but merely expanding the legal arguments previously submitted to the Board of Appeal as well as the General Court.

               2.

               In addition the Court failed to take account of the fact that the Board of Appeal had failed to state its reasons why it confirmed the Cancellation Division's decision to grant the Respondent's application for invalidity in the consolidated proceedings initially consisting of four separate applications and to have the Appellant bear the cost of all four proceedings brought before the Office despite the fact that both consolidated decisions were only based on rights invoked and/or owned by one of the two respective applicants.

               3.

               Moreover the General Court's decision under review is also based on a distortion of facts and evidence as well as on a misconception and misappropriation of the General Court's jurisdiction in as much as it had failed to properly apply the facts available and the law within the ambit of the second plea in law, i.e. the infringement of Art. 8 Community Trademark Regulation 207/2009 (1) (hereinafter referred as CTMR). Had the General Court adhered to the fundamental principles of law, including the right to fair proceedings as well the right to state reasons in support of a decision, it must have granted the action brought before it. This holds the more as the General Court has confirmed the decisions of the Board of Appeal in full knowledge of the fact that the basis of the decisions, namely the existence of a national Benelux and French trademark, at the time of the decision under appeal before the General Court was neither proven by the Respondent nor were they given. Hence the General Court infringed Article 8 (1) CTMR as well as Article 53 (1) CTMR in that it had applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant's trademark registrations were to be cancelled based upon prior Benelux and French trademark registrations.

               4.

               The errors committed are both of procedural as well as substantive law nature. Hence the Appellant will first illustrate the General Court’s failure to admit the submissions made at the hearing and secondly set out the reasons why the General Court must have come to the conclusion that the second plea in law raised before it was well-founded on account of an infringement of acknowledged principles of due process of law as well as in light of the facts given.

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


title: Case T-55/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a cleaning device — Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge — Declaration of invalidity)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Chen v OHIM — AM Denmark (Cleaning device)
   (Case T-55/12) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a cleaning device - Community three-dimensional mark representing a cleaning device fitted with a spraying device and a sponge - Declaration of invalidity)
   2013/C 164/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Su-Shan Chen (Sanchong, Taiwan) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: AM Denmark A/S (Kokkedal, Denmark) (represented by: C. Type Jardorf, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2011 (Case R 2179/2010-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between AM Denmark A/S and Su-Shan Chen

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Su-Shan Chen to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case C-475/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2013 — Walter Jubin v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 August 2013 — Walter Jubin v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
   (Case C-475/13)
   2013/C 359/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Walter Jubin

      Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               May compensation granted under national law, which is intended to reimburse additional travel costs incurred as a result of the cancellation of a booked flight, be deducted from the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation (1) if the air carrier has fulfilled its obligations under Article 8(1) of the regulation?

               2.

               If deduction is possible: does it also apply to the cost of alternative transportation to the final destination of the flight?

               3.

               In so far as deduction is possible: may the air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is it dependent on the extent to which it is permitted by national law or the court considers it equitable?

               4.

               In so far as national law is applicable or the court is required to take a discretionary decision: is the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation intended to redress only the inconvenience and the loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 28 November 1996 in Case C-277/95 P: Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Time-limit for the bringing of an action for damages by the spouse or child of an official - Principle of res judicata - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
No C 74/ 10             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          relevant to the subject-matter under examination, the
                        ( Fourth Chamber)                                       case where an importer acting in good faith and with
                                                                                the authorization of the customs authority took
                      of 28 November 1996
                                                                                delivery of and placed into circulation products
in Case C-2 77/95 P: Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz v.                              imported from a non-member State, without paying
          Commission of the European Communities (')                            the countervailing charge imposed by Commission
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1591/92 ( 3 ), where that omission
(Officials — Time-limit for the bringing of an action for                       is attributable to the fact that the competent customs
damages by the spouse or child of an official — Principle                       authority was not aware of the existence of that
           of res judicata — Manifest inadmissibility)                          Regulation owing either to the lack of any machinery
                             ( 97/C 74/ 17 )                                    for punctual communication to it of the applicability
                                                                                of a Community rule having direct application or to a
                 (Language of the case: German)                                 failure of coordination between the Community and
                                                                                national bodies involved, or to any other reason
                                                                                unconnected with any action taken by the importer, or
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                does the adoption of the Regulation afford sufficient
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                warrant on its own for the post-clearance imposition
                                                                                of the countervailing charge ?
In Case C-277/95 P: an appeal against the order of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        2.   Are the time-limits laid down in Articles 3 and 5
( Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 1995 in Cases T-462/93 ,
T-464/93       and   T-470/93       Lenz     v.  Commission,     not
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1854/85 (4 ) for
                                                                                determining customs duty preclusive in the sense that
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings                        the expiry thereof with action not having been taken
                                                                                nullifies the right of the customs authorities to
being: Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Julian Curall, assisted by Bertrand Wagenbaur, of the                           determine and collect the countervailing charge ?
                                                                                Furthermore, in the absence of exceptional
Hamburg Bar ), — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
                                                                                circumstances or a situation of force majeure, can the
of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                                lapse of time amounting to upwards of five months
C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; A. La
                                                                                from the time when the customs authority became
Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                                aware of the situation and was in a position to
a judgment on 28 November 1996 in which it:
                                                                                calculate the amount due be regarded as exceeding a
                                                                                reasonable period within which it ought to have
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                       acted ?
2 . orders Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz to pay the costs.                    3 . Does the imposition of the countervailing charge in
                                                                                issue concern solely fresh dessert cherries or also
(>) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                              cherries intended for industrial processing ?
                                                                           (') OJ  No  L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) OJ  No  L 197,  3 . 8 . 1979, p . 1 .
                                                                           (3) OJ  No  L 168 , 23 . 6 . 1992 , p . 18 .
                                                                           (4) OJ  No  L 186 , 30 . 6 . 1989, p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,
Salonika (Third section ) by judgment of that court of
24 October 1996 in the case of Covita AVE against the
                              Greek State
                          ( Case C-3 70/96 )
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                             ( 97/C 74/18 )                                Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           court of 9 December 1996 in the commercial registration
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case brought by the European Information Technology
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko                               Observatory, a European Economic Interest Group
Efetio (Administrative Court of Appeal ), Salonika (Third                                              ( Case C-402/96 )
section ) of 24 October 1996, received at the Court
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/ 19 )
Registry on 25 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Covita AVE against the Greek State on the
following questions :                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
1 . May the terms ' special circumstances' and 'error made                 Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court ) Frankfurt am
     by the competent authorities' used in Article 13 of                   Main of 9 December 1996 , which was received at the
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 (') and Article 5               Court Registry on 23 December 1996 , for a preliminary
     ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (2 )                   ruling in the commercial registration case brought by the
    respectively be interpreted as including, each one                     European Information Technology Observatory, a
     separately or in conjunction both with each other and                 European Economic Interest Group on the following
    such other provisions or principles as may be                          question:


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 March 1999 in Case C-100/96 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division]: The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Marketing authorisation - Plant protection product imported from an EEA State or a third country - Identical to a plant protection product already authorised by the Member State of importation - Assessment of identical nature - Member States' power of assessment)

text:
C 188/2                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           3.7.1999
— Sixth Chamber                                                               — shares a common origin with that product in that it has been
                                                                                manufactured by the same company or by an associated
    President: Mr Kapteyn                                                         undertaking or under licence according to the same formu-
                                                                                lation,
    Judge Mancini, Judge Hirsch, Judge Schintgen, Judge Skour-
    is, Judge Murray and Judge Ragnemalm.                                     — was manufactured using the same active ingredient, and
                                                                              — also has the same effect with due regard to differences which
                                                                                may exist in conditions relating to agriculture, plant health
(1) OJ C 299 of 26 September 1998, p. 1.                                          and environment, and in particular climatic conditions,
                                                                                relevant to the use of the product,
                                                                              that product must be able to benefit from the marketing
                                                                              authorisation already granted in the Member State of import-
                                                                              ation, unless that is precluded by considerations concerning the
                                                                              protection of human and animal health and of the environment.
                                                                         2. The competent authority of one Member State may grant
                                                                              marketing authorisation for a plant protection product importet
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         from a third country which is not already covered by marketing
                                                                              authorisation granted in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                              Directive 91/414 in another Member State, only under the
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                      conditions laid down by that directive.
                        of 11 March 1999                                 (1) JO No C 145 of 18.5.1996.
in Case C-100/96 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division]: The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture,
                      Fisheries and Food (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Marketing authorisation — Plant protection product
imported from an EEA State or a third country — Identical
to a plant protection product already authorised by the                                           of 16 March 1999
Member State of importation — Assessment of identical
        nature — Member States’ power of assessment)                     in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96:
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark (C-289/96), Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany (Case C- 293/96) and French Republic (C-
                         (1999/C 188/03)                                  299/96) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 — Commission Regu-
                   (Language of the case: English)                       lation (EC) No 1107/96 — Registration of geographical
                                                                                indications and designations of origin — ‘Feta’)
In Case C-100/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                       (1999/C 188/04)
the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice (England &
Wales) Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         (Language of the case: Danish, German and French)
court between The Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on                                  in the European Court Reports)
the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber;                   In Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96: Kingdom
G. Hirsch, J.L. Murray (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    of Denmark (C-289/96) (Agent: P. Biering), Federal Republic
R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-             of Germany (C-293/96) (Agents: E. Röder and A. Dittrich) and
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has              French Republic (C-299/96) (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and
given a judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it has ruled:                G. Mignot) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         [Agents: (C-289/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. Støvlbæk,
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State finds that a          (C-293/96) J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, (C-299/96)
    plant protection product imported from an EEA State in which         J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and G. Berscheid], supported by Hellenic
    it is already covered by marketing authorisation granted in          Republic [Agents: D. Papageorgopoulos (C-293/96), I. Chalkias
    accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991         (C-289/96 and C-299/96) and I. Galani-Maragkoudaki
    concerning the placing of plant protection products on the           (C-289/96), C- 293/96 and C-299/96] — application for
    market, if not identical in all respects to a product already        annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
    authorised within the Member State of importation, at least          12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications


title: Case F-63/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — Compliance with a judgment — Costs — Reimbursement of costs — Reimbursement of the sum paid by way of recoverable costs following a judgment annulling in part the judgment by which the applicant was ordered to pay those costs)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/21

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 November 2013 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-63/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Compliance with a judgment - Costs - Reimbursement of costs - Reimbursement of the sum paid by way of recoverable costs following a judgment annulling in part the judgment by which the applicant was ordered to pay those costs)
   2013/C 377/47
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, Agents, A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the letters by which the defendant refuses to reimburse, following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-37/10 P De Nicola v EIB, which annulled in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-55/08 De Nicola v EIB, the EUR 6 000 which the applicant had paid to the defendant by way of recoverable costs following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-55/08 DEP.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of 4 and 25 May 2012 of the European Investment Bank;

               2.

               Orders the European Investment bank to pay Mr De Nicola the sum of EUR 6 000, with default interest as from 29 April 2012. The default interest rate must be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable over the period concerned, increased by two points;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 16.


title: Case C-419/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Crono Service Scarl and Others v Roma Capitale

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy), lodged on 14 September 2012 — Crono Service Scarl and Others v Roma Capitale
   (Case C-419/12)
   2012/C 366/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Crono Service Scarl and Others

      Defendant: Roma Capitale

      Question referred

   Do Article 49 TFEU, Article 3 TEU, Articles 3 TFEU, 4 TFEU, 5 TFEU, 6 TFEU, 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU preclude the application of Articles 3(3), 8(3) and 11 of Law No 21 of 1992 [on the carriage of passengers by public non-scheduled car and coach services] in so far as the latter provisions respectively provide that ‘[t]he registered office of the carrier, and the garage, must be located, exclusively, within the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’, that ‘[i]n order to obtain and maintain an authorisation for a car- and driver-hire service it is necessary to have the use, pursuant to a valid legal title, of a registered office, a garage or a vehicle rank located in the territory of the municipality which issued the authorisation’ and that ‘[b]ookings for car- and driver-hire services shall take place at the garage. Each individual car- and driver-hire service must begin and end at the garage located in the municipality in which the authorisation was issued, returning to that garage, although the collection of the user and the user’s arrival at his destination may take place also in other municipalities’?


               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/1

         2011/C 38/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 30, 29.1.2011

      Past publications

      OJ C 13, 15.1.2011

      OJ C 346, 18.12.2010

      OJ C 328, 4.12.2010

      OJ C 317, 20.11.2010

      OJ C 301, 6.11.2010

      OJ C 288, 23.10.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcantara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-82/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 233/ 15
— order the Commission to pay to each applicant, as                   Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Associaçâo dos
     compensation for the non-material damage suffered , the          Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP), Alcantara
     sum of Bfrs 50 000,                                              Refinarias — Açucares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar
                                                                      Reunidas SA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                ( Case T-82/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233 /27 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicants, Commission officials employed in the
Institute for Transuranic Elements, Karlsruhe, state that
they were also the applicants in Case T-64/92 , in which              An action against the Commission of the European
judgment was delivered by the Court of First Instance on              Communities was brought before the Court of First
27 October 1994 . In that judgment, the Court of First                Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
Instance annulled their pay slips for January 1 992 , in so far       Associaçâo dos Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ),
as they applied a weighting for Germany calculated by                 Alcantara Refinarias — Açucares SA and RAR Refinarias de
reference to the cost of living in Bonn , although Berlin had         Açucar Reunidas SA, represented by Gerard van der Wal ,
since October 1990 become the capital of the Federal                  member of the Bar of the Netherlands Supreme Court ( Orde
Republic of Germany . The applicants also state that the              van Advocaten bij de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ), of
appointing authority had agreed to extend the effects of the          Barents & Krans, Advocaten Notarissen, with an address
judgment of the Court of First Instance to all pay slips drawn        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31
                                                                      Grand Rue .
up after January 1992 , in so far as they apply a weighting
calcualted by reference to the cost of living in Bonn .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should :
In consequence of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, the Commission sent to the Council a proposal for           — déclaré the application admissible ,
the fixing, with retroactive effect from 1 October 1990 , of a
weighting for Germany calculated on the basis of the cost of
living in Berlin , as well as specific weightings for Bonn and        — declare the decisions of 11 January 1996 and/or
                                                                          19 March 1996 and/or 23 November 1995 void :
Karlsruhe . At its meeting on 19 December 1994 , the Council
adopted Regulation ( EEC ) No 3161 /94 adjusting, with
effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and pensions of                 — 11 January 1996 ( SG ( 96 ) D/ 1245 aid No N 1 1 /95 ),
officials and other servants of the European Communities                      sent to the applicants on 1 April 1996 ,
and the weightings applied thereto, which provides , in
particular, for the fixing, in accordance with the                        — 19 March 1996 ( VI/012420 ) relating to complaint
Commission proposal , of a specific weighting for Karlsruhe .                 No 94/5122 , and
It nevertheless decided to send to Coreper the proposal for
the retroactived fixing of weightings for Germany .                       — 23 November 1995 ( Aid No N 832/95 ) ('),
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the applicants 1 costs .
The applicants consider that, as a result of the annulment by
the Court of First Instance of their pay slips for January
 1992 ( which annulment must necessarily extend to all pay            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
slips drawn up subsequently ), it was incumbent on the
Commission to draw up new pay slips applying to the
remuneration, in the absence of a specific weighting for              The applicants state that on November 1994 they sent a
Karlsruhe, a weighting calculated by reference to the cost of         complaint to the Commission requesting it to initiate the
 living in the capital of the country . They consider that, by        procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
 refusing to do so , the Commission has infringed Article 176         concerning the State aid granted by the Portuguese
 of the EC Treaty.                                                    Government to DAI ( Sociedade de Desinvolvemento
                                                                      Agro-Industrial ) for the establishment of a beet-sugar
                                                                      factory . On 12 December 1994 , the Commission informed
The applicants further maintain that the Commission has               the applicants that it had decided not to initiate the
 breached its duty to have regard for the welfare and interests       procedure or to take the other measures requested . As the
 of officials ( Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials ),   letter appeared to constitute a decision confirming the
 and has infringed Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations        approval of the national aid schemes under Articles 92 and
 and Annex XI thereto , inasmuch as the proposals submitted           93 of the EC Treaty and contained the refusal of the
 by it to the Council unlawfully provide for the fixing, with         measures requested , the applicants brought an action
 retroactive effect, of a specific weighting for Karlsruhe .          against that decision before the Court of First Instance ( 2 ). In
                                                                      that case the Commission lodged an objection of
                                                                       inadmissibility in which it emphasized that it had not yet
                                                                      reached a final position . Under those circumstances , the
                                                                      applicants sent new complaints to the Commission .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 233/ 16              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 8 . 96
 In this action the applicants challenge the following                        results in an infringement of Article 213 of the Fourth
 decisions :                                                                  ACP-EEC Convention .
                                                                          ') OJ No C 128 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 3 .
 1 . The Commission's decision of 1 1 January 1996 ( SG(96 )              -) Case T-83/95 , OJ No C 137, 31 . 6 , 1 995 .
       D/ 1245 ), addressed to the Portuguese Government. By
       this decision the Commission authorized the Portuguese
       State aid ( fiscal incentive and training costs ) granted by
       the Portuguese Government to DAI for the
       establishment of a beet-sugar factory in Portugal . The
       Commission also decided not to investigate the                    Action brought on 29 May 1996 by G. van der Wal against
       investment aid , as it was granted by the Portuguese                     the Commission of the European Communities
       Government within the framework of Regulation ( EEC )                                      ( Case T-83 /96 )
       No 866/90 and Community co-financing.
                                                                                ( 96/C 233/28 )
      The applicants maintain that the decision is unlawful
       and erroneous for the following reasons :                                         (Language of the case: Dutcb)
      — the decision is inadequately and insufficiently                  An action against the Commission of the European
           reasoned ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ),                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
      — procedural requirements have not been observed :                 G. van der Wal , of Kraainem , Belgium , represented by P.
           notwithstanding the active participation of the               Bleeker and L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an
           applicants , they were not invited to take part in the       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A.
           procedure ; it is contrary to a fair and transparent         May, 31 Grand Rue .
           application of the State aid provisions to leave the
           applicants outside the administrative procedure .            The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 29 March 1 996 ,
2.    The    Commission's       decision   of  19   March     1996           and
      ( VI/012420 ). By this decision the Commission informed
      the applicants of the rejection of their complaint and of         — order the Commission to bear the costs .
      the authorization of 11 January 1996 .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      The applicants consider that the decision is unlawful
      and erroneous for reasons similar to those put forward            On         the     basis        of        Commission Decision
      in Case T-83 /95 .                                                94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (') the applicant asked the
                                                                        Commission for copies of the letters it had sent to three
                                                                        national judicial bodies referred to in the 24th Report on
3 . The Commission's decision of 23 November 1995 ( Aid
                                                                        Competition ( 1994 ). That request was rejected by the
      No N832/95 ) not to raise an objection under Articles 92          contested decision .
      and 93 of the EC Treaty against aid for the marketing of
      agricultural products with the object of improving the            The applicant submits inter alia that :
      conditions of processing and marketing agricultural
      products .                                                        — the contested decision does not satisfy the requirement
                                                                             that reasons be given under Article 190 of the EC
      The applicants explain that at this stage of the procedure             Treaty,
      they do not have any information , apart from the
      publication of the authorization by the Commission ( OJ           — the 'protection of the public interest' may be invoked
      No C 128 , 1996 , p . 3 ). However, they cannot discount               only because of the particular circumstances of an
      the possibility that this authorization concerns the                   individual case , of which there was no mention by the
      inclusion of the beet-sugar sector in the national                     Commission in this instance,
      legislation for the application of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 866/90 . Should this be the case , they raise against          — the derogation for 'court proceedings ' relates to
      this decision all the pleas of law set out earlier in their            procedures in which the Commission is a party, and not
      application .                                                          the provision of information — which , moreover, was
                                                                             not confidential — to national courts,
Finally, the applicants submit that the State aid to DAI and
the Commission's decision not to take measures and initiate             — therê is no basis for the Commission's view that
the procedure requested by them and to authorize the aid                     disclosure of the letters would undermine cooperation
and/or not to raise any objections :                                         with national courts .
— is contrary to the Multilateral Agreements on Trade,                  C ) OJ No L 46 , 1994 , p . 58 .
     more specifically the Agreement on Agriculture
     ( Article 6 of Annex II ), and


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 March 2015 in Case E-17/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)

text:
               22.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 31 March 2015
   in Case E-17/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)
   (2015/C 350/08)
   In Case E-17/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force national rules, such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of that Article, including the applicability of Article 63(2) of the Health Act in those respects, which require an authorised ‘Dentist’ to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force Article 63 of the Health Act, which requires that a person holding the qualification referred to in German as ‘Dentist’ has to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (‘Zahnarzt’).

               2.

               Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 1999 in Case C-453/98 P: Eugénio Branco Ld.a v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — European Social Fund — Reduction in financial assistance — Certification by the Member State — Misappraisal of the facts — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Proportionality)

text:
4.3.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 63/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT
                        of 11 January 2000                                                          (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-285/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                                              of 12 November 1999
from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover): Tanja Kreil v
                Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1)
                                                                           in Case C-453/98 P: Eugénio Branco Ld.a v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Limitation of access
        by women to military posts in the Bundeswehr)
                                                                           (Appeal — European Social Fund — Reduction in financial
                                                                           assistance — Certification by the Member State — Misap-
                          (2000/C 63/16)                                   praisal of the facts — Legitimate expectations — Legal
                                                                                certainty — Proportionality)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                     (2000/C 63/17)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-285/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungs-                                       in the European Court Reports)
gericht Hannover, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Tania Kreil
and Bundesrepublik Deutschland — on the interpretation of                  In Case C-453/98 P: Eugénio Branco Ld.a, established in Lisbon
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                     (Portugal), represented by B. Belchior, of the Bar of Vila Nova
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men                 de Gaia, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                      Chambers of J. Schroeder, 6 Rue Heine — appeal against the
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                    judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
L 39, p. 40), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court,                 Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in Case
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho            T-142/97 Branco v Commission [1998] ECR II-3567, seeking
de Almeida and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-              to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch,                proceedings being the Commission of the European Com-
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,                       munities (Agents: T. Figueira and K. Simonsson) — the Court
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,            (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of
has given a judgment on 11 January 2000, in which it has                   the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
ruled:                                                                     Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           made an order on 12 November 1999, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women as regards access to employment, vocational training and             1. The appeal is dismissed.
promotion, and working conditions precludes the application of
national provisions, such as those of German law, which impose a
general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of        2. Eugénio Branco Ld.a is ordered to pay the costs.
arms and which allow them access only to the medical and
military-music services.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-678/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/17

         Appeal brought on 29 December 2016 by Monster Energy Company against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15: Monster Energy Company v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-678/16 P)
   (2017/C 144/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Monster Energy Company (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the General Court of 20 October 2016 in Case T-407/15

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R1028/2014-5

               —

               Annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition 2 178567

               —

               Reject the opposed Mark for all goods in classes 29, 30 and 33

               —

               Order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR (1) in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark. If the correct approach had been taken by the General Court it would have led to a finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the earlier mark.
   The General Court incorrectly applied Article 8(5) EUTMR in its approach to the assessment of, and weight to be attached to, the dominant and/or distinctive elements of a composite mark.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ 2009, L 78, p. 1