title: Case T-85/01: Action brought on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 186/12                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
Action brought on 5 April 2001 by VOF Josanne and                         In regard to dredging equipment, the applicants submit that in
Others against the Commission of the European Com-                        general the activities in question involve removal of the
                               munities                                   dredged material. Such removal is in general an activity
                                                                          inherent in that of dredging equipment such as hopper and
                                                                          suction dredgers. This, however, does not constitute a carriage
                           (Case T-82/01)                                 of goods within the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation.
                          (2001/C 186/18)                                 Should it none the less be held that the transport inherent in
                                                                          the operation of dredging equipment does constitute a carriage
                                                                          of goods within the meaning of Article 1 of the regulation, the
                                                                          question arises as to whether the Josanne, as a specialised vessel
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                        under Article 4(6) of the regulation, is eligible for exemption
                                                                          from the scope of Article 4(1) thereof. The applicants take the
                                                                          view that the conditions laid down by Article 4(6) of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 regulation have been satisfied and that the vessel does not
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                contribute to an increase in fleet capacity and does not
European Communities on 5 April 2001 by VOF Josanne,                      adversely affect the objectives of the Community rules. The
established in Papendrecht, P. van Wijnen and A.J. van Wijnen,            Commission, they submit, errs in its view that the Josanne fails
both resident in Papendrecht, and A. Veen, resident in                    to satisfy those criteria on the ground that the vessel can
Meerkerk, all represented by J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar.            transport a variety of types of goods, and that bringing that
                                                                          vessel into service would consequently contribute to an
                                                                          increase in fleet capacity. The Josanne is not suitable for the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          carriage of any sort of goods other than dredged material.
(1) Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286100 of
      9 February 2001 not to grant the applicants the requested           The applicants offer to substantiate their views by all legal
      exemption from the old-for-new obligations set out in               means, in particular by way of witnesses and experts.
      Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of
      29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to
      promote inland waterway transport, and rule that the
      requested exemption ought to be granted in respect of
      the hopper and suction dredger Josanne;
(2) Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            S.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities
The applicants challenge Commission Decision SG (2001)                                               (Case T-85/01)
D/286100 of 9 February 2001, which is addressed to them.
That decision was issued in response to the request which VOF
                                                                                (2001/C 186/19)
Josanne submitted to the Commission on 27 June 2000 that
the hopper and suction dredger Josanne be exempted from
application of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation No 718/1999
of 29 March 1999. In the contested decision, the Commission                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
decided not to grant the requested exemption, a decision
which has a direct adverse effect on the applicants’ interests.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The Josanne was specially designed to perform dredging and                European Communities on 11 April 2001 by IAMA Consulting
suction work and consequently intended for use in ‘wet                    S.r.l., represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, lawyer.
contracting’, that is to say, with regard to water- (public-works)
related activities. The Josanne was thus designed for only one            The applicant claims that the Court should:
sort of material, namely ‘dredged material, dredged mud’.
                                                                          —      annul the contested provisions in so far as they are
                                                                                unlawful, inasmuch as the expenses incurred by IAMA
According to the Commission, although the Josanne is indeed                      Consulting S.r.l. in the periods 1 May 1996 to 31 October
an item of dredging equipment, the exemption under                               1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and 1 November 1996 to
Article 2(2)(g) of Regulation No 718/1999 is not applicable                      31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG 23200) are not
inasmuch as the vessel is also designed for the transport of                     recognised as eligible, and make any other appropriate
filling sand, filling earth, fouled earth and fouled dredged mud.                order;
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 186/13
—     in the alternative: review the amounts accounted for in          Action brought on 11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH
      the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing the amount            against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      not attributed to IAMA Consulting S.r.l., to its detriment,                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      in each case in an amount not less than LIT 600 000 000
      (six hundred million), the exact amount to be quantified
      according to prudent and fair assessment;                                                 (Case T-86/01)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   (2001/C 186/20)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The present action has been brought against the measures               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
adopted by the Commission on 12 February 2001 (INFSO-                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3/dec0033FM/D(01)240047) and 21 February 2001 (INFO-                   11 April 2001 by Robert Bosch GmbH, of Stuttgart (Germany),
R2/feb0020RW/D(01)400027) respectively, with regard to                 represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
the eligibility of expenses incurred by IAMA International             for service in Luxembourg.
Management Advisors S.r.l. and by the applicant in the context
of ESPRIT projects REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200, in so
far as the expenses incurred by the applicant in the periods           The applicant claims that the Court should:
1 May 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REGIS 22337) and
1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997 (Project REFIAG                     —     annul the decision adopted on 31 January 2001 by the
23200) are not recognised as eligible.                                       First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the
                                                                             appeal proceedings registered under number
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims:                           R 123/2000-1 concerning Community trade mark appli-
                                                                             cation No 761 304;
—     Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1362, 1366,
      1368, 1370, 1374 and 1375 of the Italian Civil Code;             —     order the defendant Office to pay the costs.
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the facts were misassessed
      and misrepresented. The applicant submits in this respect        Pleas in law and main arguments
      that the Commission regards the applicant undertaking
      as separate and autonomous from the other undertaking
      mentioned above, whereas they form part of the IAMA              Applicant for the Com-        the applicant
      group, of which both are representative. Consequently,           munity trade mark:
      the defendant appears to have accorded decisive import-
      ance to the formal matter of IAMA Consulting S.r.l.
                                                                       The trade mark con-           the verbal mark ‘Kit Super Pro’
      replacing IAMA International S.r.l., regarding it as suc-
                                                                       cerned:
      cessor to the relationship originally entered into with
      IAMA International S.r.l. only since 1 November 1997.
                                                                       Goods or service con-         goods and services in Class 12
                                                                       cerned:                       (parts for repairing drum brakes
—     Misuse of powers inasmuch as the measures are illogical,                                       in land vehicles)
      contradictory and do not provide an adequate statement
      of reasons. The applicant submits in this respect that, in
      view of the fact that the two aforementioned undertakings        Decision        contested     refusal of the application for regis-
      belong to the same group, of which the applicant is the          before the Board of           tration of the mark
      operational undertaking in relation to the group leader          Appeal:
      IAMA International S.r.l., and that contracts were per-
      formed in good time, it is difficult to see the objective        Grounds of claim:             — The mark is not descriptive
      pursued by the Commission in penalising the IAMA                                                   within the meaning of
      group by not finding eligible the expenses incurred by                                             Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
      the applicant in the performance of contracts which,                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1).
      moreover, made it possible for the prescribed objectives
                                                                                — There is no need to keep the
      to be fully attained.
                                                                                mark free.
                                                                                — The mark possesses the mini-
                                                                                mum level of distinctiveness
                                                                                necessary for trade-mark pro-
                                                                                tection.


title: Joined Cases C-123/04 and C-124/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Industrias Nucleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG v UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04) (EAEC Treaty — Supplies — Property ownership — Enrichment of uranium on the territory of the Community by a national of a third State)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Industrias Nucleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG v UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04)
   (Joined Cases C-123/04 and C-124/04) (1)

   (EAEC Treaty - Supplies - Property ownership - Enrichment of uranium on the territory of the Community by a national of a third State)
   (2006/C 281/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Industrias Nucleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG

      Defendants: UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04),
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Interpretation of Arts. 57, 73, 75, 86, 87, 196 and 197 EA — Contract of loan guaranteed by a security over uranium belonging to an undertaking from a third State, enriched and stored in the Community
   Operative part

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 75 EA is to be interpreted as meaning that the terms ‘processing’, ‘conversion’ and ‘shaping’ in that provision also encompass uranium enrichment.

               2.

               Article 196(b) EA is to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking having its seat outside the territories of the Member States does not pursue, within the meaning of that provision, all or any of its activities in those territories if it maintains with an undertaking having its seat in those territories a commercial relationship either for the supply of raw material for the production of enriched uranium and the procurement of enriched uranium or for the storage of that enriched uranium.

               3.

               Article 75(c) EA is to be interpreted as meaning that the material supplied for treatment, conversion or shaping need not be identical to the material subsequently returned and that it is sufficient for the processed material to be commensurate in terms of quality and quantity with the material supplied, although it may be impossible, in some cases, to attribute the material returned to the material supplied. In addition, the provision is to be interpreted as meaning that the application of Article 75(c) EA is not precluded where the undertaking carrying out the process acquires title to the raw material on delivery and therefore has to transfer title to the enriched uranium back to the other contracting party on completion of the process.

               4.

               Article 196(b) EA is to be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking does not pursue all or any of its activities in the territories of the Member States within the meaning of that provision if it acquires or disposes of enriched uranium stored there.

               5.

               Article 73 EA is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to agreements concerning enriched uranium stored within the territory of the European Atomic Energy Community where all the parties to the agreement are nationals of third States.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004


title: Case C-162/01 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2000 by E. Bouma against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one hand, E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed           1983, that being the Netherlands reference year), particu-
      the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary undertak-          larly in the light of the judgment in Spagl (2): there is
      ings the aid provided for under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter           nothing to indicate that — as the Court of First Instance
      schemes which were declared unlawful and incompatible with                seeks to suggest — the Court of Justice intended to
      the common market by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of                     restrict the invalidity of Regulation No 857/84 (3) to cases
      4 December 1996 concerning aid granted by Belgium under                   in which the SLOM producers concerned were unable to
      the Maribel bis/ter scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has                    resume production during the 1983 reference year,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of            following the expiry of their non-marketing undertakings,
      Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of                 which had by then come to an end. Had that indeed been
      Article 249 EC) and Articles 2 and 3 of the said decision;                the intention of the Court of Justice, it would have had to
                                                                                apply that limitation expressly, since the particular case
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           before it was precisely concerned whit a SLOM producer
                                                                                in respect of whom it had been established that he had
                                                                                produced non milk during the entire reference year,
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                      despite the fact that his non-marketing undertaking had
                                                                                expired during the course of that year (on 31 March
                                                                                1983). The interpretation arrived at by the Court of First
                                                                                Instance reflects the principal argument raised as a
                                                                                defence by the institutions in Spagl, which was manifestly
Appeal brought on 13 April 2000 by E. Bouma against the                         rejected in the judgment.
judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                          The case of Spagl was in the nature of a test case, and
Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one hand,                          was, moreover, treated as such by the Court of Justice. By
E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European                         purporting, over ten years later, to limit the scope of the
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                            judgment in Spagl by applying a speculative gloss to the
                                                                                significance of the underlying facts, the Court of First
                                                                                Instance has misconstrued the judicial task of the Court
                          (Case C-162/01 P)                                     of Justice, thereby seriously undermining the principle of
                                                                                legal certainty.
                           (2001/C 227/09)                                      The judgment in the present case directly conflicts with
                                                                                an earlier judgment delivered by the Court of First
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001                     Instance itself, in Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     Quiller and Heusmann.
European Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one
hand, E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European              —    Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of the
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                            protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement
Communities on 13 April 2001 by E. Bouma, represented by                        of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, in
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other parties tot the                     assessing Mr Bouma’s compensation claims, attached
proceedings being the Council of the European Union, rep-                       significance to the fact that he did not produce any milk
resented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of the European                    between 31 December 1983 and 1 April 1984: it is
Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.                                        impossible to see why a defence previously rejected by
                                                                                the Court of Justice (in paragraphs 15 and 16 of its
                                                                                judgment in Mulder I, paragraph 14 of its judgment in
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     Spagl and paragraph 17 of its interim judgment in
                                                                                Mulder II) and also by the Court of First Instance (see
—     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                                paragraph 97 of the judgment in Quiller and Heusmann)
      Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-533/93 (1);
                                                                                should subsequently have been accepted by the Court of
—     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;                       First Instance.
—     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs                —    Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of the
      of the proceedings before both Courts.                                    protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
                                                                                legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement
                                                                                of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
                                                                                wrongly assessed the compensation claims of SLOM 83
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 producers, particularly in the light of the judgment in
                                                                                Mulder II: it is apparent that, in paragraph 23 of the
—     Breach of the principle of equality, the principle of the                 interim judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 May 1992,
      protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of                   cited by the Court of First Instance, the Court of
      legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement                 Justice merely concluded that the four SLOM producers
      of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance                       concerned had made it sufficiently clear that they did in
      incorrectly assessed the compensation claims of SLOM                      fact intend to resume milk production. There is nothing
      83 producers (that is to say, SLOM producers whose non-                   to indicate that the Court of Justice intended to provide
      marketing undertakings expired during the course of                       an exhaustive list of the ways in which that intention
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/7
      might be manifested. It is striking to note the importance        European Communities in Case T-73/94 between, on the one
      attached by the Court of Justice to the fact that in 1989,        hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of
      immediately after being granted a provisional reference           the European Union and the Commission of the European
      quantity, the four producers concerned resumed milk               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      production. That circumstance is totally disregarded in           the European Communities on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.M.
      the considerations of the Court of First Instance as              Beusmans, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat,
      contained in the contested judgment. For the rest, it             ther other parties to the proceedings being the Council of
      should be noted that, in its interim judgment in Mulder II,       the European Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the
      the Court of Justice did not deal at all with the specific        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      issues concerning the SLOM 83 producers.                          T. van Rijn.
—     The Court of First Instance incorrectly allocated the             The appellant claims that the Courts should:
      burden of proof, or at least imposed on Mr Bouma a
      burden of proof which is legally impermissible: prior to          —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
      the entry into force of Regulation No 857/84, a SLOM                    Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-73/94 (1);
      producer in Mr Bouma’s situation could not assume that,           —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
      if he did not resume production before 1 April 1984, he
      might forfeit, definitively and completely, his right to a        —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
      reference quantity — or to alternative compensation. The                of the proceedings before both Courts.
      imposition of the burden of showing ‘that he had the
      intention of resuming milk production upon the expiry
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      of his non-marketing undertaking and that he found it
      impossible to do so owing to the entry into force of
      Regulation No 857/84’ necessarily means that Mr Bouma             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      is faced, retroactively, with the consequences of the entry       in Case C-162/01 P.
      into force of that regulation.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 C 90, p. 25.
      A Community citizen in the position of Mr Bouma
      cannot reasonably be expected, some 17 to 18 years after
      the material time, still to have at his disposal written
      evidence concerning the management of his holding                 Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg
      during a period in the distant past — a fortiori since in no      against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the
      previous judgment of the Court of Justice or the Court of         Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      First Instance was any relevance attached to evidence             European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the
      concerning the points which the Court of First Instance           one hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council
      now regards as crucial.                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
—     The Court of First Instance set out and assessed the
      relevant facts in such an erroneous and biased manner                                    (Case C-164/01 P)
      that its judgment cannot be regarded as consistent with
      the obligation to provide reasons or the principle of
                                                                                (2001/C 227/11)
      objectivity.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
(1) OJ 1993 C 334, p. 17.                                               by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(2) Judgment of 11 December 1990 in Case C-189/89.                      European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the one
(3) OJ 1984 L 148, p. 13.                                               hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council of
                                                                        the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg,
Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans                    represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                parties to the proceedings being the Council of the European
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of
European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the                    the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.
one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the                      The appellant claims that the Court s hould:
Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                   the European Communities                             —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                              Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-143/97 (1);
                        (Case C-163/01 P)                               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                              further determination of the action brought by the
                         (2001/C 227/10)                                      appellant before the Court of First Instance on 29 April
                                                                              1997;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001             —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   of the proceedings before both Courts.


title: Case C-390/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada
   (Case C-390/16)
   (2016/C 350/19)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Törvényszék

      Party to the main proceedings

   Dániel Bertold Lada

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 67 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) be interpreted as precluding a criminal procedure or other national procedure, governed by national legislation, the purpose of which is the ‘recognition’ or application in a Member State of the validity of a foreign judgment (resulting in the foreign judgment being regarded as having been delivered by a national court), in relation to a defendant in a criminal case in which a final and definitive judgment has already been given by a national court of another Member State of the European Union?

               2.

               Is a procedure of a Member State of the European Union, specifically that provided for in Paragraphs 46 to 48 of Hungarian Law No XXXVIII of 1996 ‘for recognition of the validity’ in Hungary [of foreign convictions], relating to criminal proceedings brought in another Member State and culminating there in a final decision (in relation to the same person and to the same acts), compatible with the principle of ‘non bis in idem’ laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (in the light of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA (1) of 24 July 2008), even if in reality that procedure has the purpose not of enforcing such a decision, but of establishing a basis for that decision to be taken into account in criminal proceedings to be brought in the future?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings (OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32).


title: Case T-211/16: Action brought on 4 May 2016 – Caviro Distillerie and others v Commission

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/41

         Action brought on 4 May 2016 – Caviro Distillerie and others v Commission
   (Case T-211/16)
   (2016/C 260/52)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Caviro Distillerie Srl (Faenza, Italy), Distillerie Bonollo SpA (Formigine, Italy), Distillerie Mazzari SpA (Sant’Agata sul Santerion, Italy), Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV) SpA (Borgoricco, Italy) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176 of 9 February 2016 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd on the grounds of manifest errors of assessment of fact and law vitiating the measure and violations of Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community;

               —

               order the defendant an any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and appraisal of the facts when it selected an unrepresentative sample of EU producers for the purpose of assessing the injury and in doing so also infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community by incorrectly assuming that the criterion of the largest EU sales volumes equates to the sample being sufficiently representative.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the defendant made manifest errors of assessment and appraisal of the facts in assessing the impact of the dumped imports on the economic situation of the EU industry and in so doing also infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 17(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.


title: Case C-443/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 3 October 2012 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 3 October 2012 — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi
   (Case C-443/12)
   2012/C 389/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

      Defendant: Sanofi

      Third party: Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC

      Questions referred

               1.

               What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1) (‘the Regulation’)?

               2.

               In a situation in which multiple products are protected by a basic patent in force, does the Regulation, and in particular Article 3(c), preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued a certificate for each of the products protected?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
   OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela by order of that court of 13 January 1998 in the case of Dorinda Teresa López Tourís against Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (Case C-25/98)

text:
C 94/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
    States must respect, in the case where the loading and          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
    unloading in port areas of, in particular, goods                Social No 1, Santiago de Compostela by order of that
    imported by sea from one Member State into the                  court of 13 January 1998 in the case of Dorinda Teresa
    territory of another Member State and port work in              López Tourís against Instituto Nacional de Empleo and
    general are reserved exclusively to registered dockers',                 Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
    the conditions and detailed rules for the recognition of
    whom are determined by the King on the advice of the                                   (Case C-25/98)
    Joint Committee having responsibility for the port
    area in question, whereby binding rates are applied,                                    (98/C 94/24)
    even though the work can be carried out by ordinary
    (that is to say, non-registered) dock workers?
2. Are registered dockers, as referred to in Article 1 of
    the Law of 8 June 1972 and having the exclusive right           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    to carry out dock work within port areas, as defined            European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
    in greater detail in the relevant legislative provisions,       Social (Social Court) No 1, Santiago de Compostela of
    to be regarded as entrusted with the operation of               13 January 1998, which was received at the Court
    services of general economic interest within the                Registry on 29 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    meaning of Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty, and would            the case of Dorinda Teresa López Tourís against Instituto
    they no longer be able to carry out their special duties        Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
    if Article 90(1) and the prohibitory provisions of              Seguridad Social on the following questions:
    Articles 7, 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty were to be
    applied to them?
                                                                    1. Must Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                        (in its present version) be interpreted, as regards the
                                                                        particular facts to which it is to be applied, as
                                                                        meaning that periods of insurance or of employment
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad,                  completed under the legislation of any other Member
Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 12 November                   State must be taken into account for the purposes of
1997 in the case of Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn v. J.               obtaining the unemployment allowance for persons
Heerma and the company, J. Heerma and K. Heerma-                        over 52 years of age, provided for by Article 215(3) of
                           Graanstra                                    Real Decreto Legislativo (Royal Legislative Decree) 1/
                        (Case C-23/98)                                  1994 of 20 June 1994, which approves the
                                                                        consolidated version of the Ley General de la
                         (98/C 94/23)                                   Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), to
                                                                        the extent to which the right to a retirement pension
                                                                        may be obtained on the basis of such contributions,
                                                                        subject to age requirements, in a Member State other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  than that of the competent institution?
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
(Supreme Court), Netherlands, of 12 November 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 January
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn v. J. Heerma and the
company, J. Heerma and K. Heerma-Graanstra on the                   2. Can that be the case even though the worker has not
following question:                                                     paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions
                                                                        for less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a
                                                                        retirement pension in any Member State?
Must Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted as
meaning that, where a person pursues as his sole economic
activity the letting of an incorporeal asset to the company
of which he is a member, that letting, albeit an economic
activity, must be regarded as not being made
independently, on the ground that the partner must be               3. Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive
deemed to constitute a taxable person together with the                 the unemployment allowance available for persons of
partnership within the meaning of Article 4(1) aforesaid?               more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that,
                                                                        subject to age requirements, they are entitled to a
                                                                        retirement pension payable by the Spanish social
                                                                        security scheme (persons having such an entitlement in
                                                                        any other Member State being precluded from
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/13
    receiving such allowance) contrary to Articles 48(2)           Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle (Case C-28/
    and 51 of the EC Treaty?                                       98) and Jean Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux
                                                                   de la Moselle (Case C-29/98) on the following question:
                                                                   Whether, having regard (Case C-28/98) to the date of
                                                                   approval of the plaintiff's Chevrolet vehicle of 33 CV
                                                                   fiscal power rating, registration number 6707 ZK 57, and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabe-           (Case C-29/98) to the date of approval of the plaintiff's
amt by order of that body of 27 January 1998 in the case           Jeep vehicle of 23 CV fiscal power rating, registration
of Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,             number 1438 XX 57, and having regard to the tax
2. Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH against Amt                diagrams and figures submitted by the plaintiff and the
               der Salzburger Landesregierung                      observations submitted by the authorities, the system of
                        (Case C-27/98)                             taxation applied corresponds to objective criteria free
                                                                   from any discriminatory effect and not falling within the
                         (98/C 94/25)                              scope of Article 95 of the Treaty.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Procurement Office) of 27 January 1998, received
at the Court Registry on 2 February 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bietergemeinschaft
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 35th Civil
(contractor grouping): 1. Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,
                                                                   Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin by order of that court
2. Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH against Amt
                                                                   of 4 November 1997 in the case of VR-Leasing GmbH
der Salzburger Landesregierung (Government Office of
                                                                                against Margit Bertram
the Land Salzburg) on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-30/98)
Is Article 18 of Directive 93/37/EEC ( ), according to
                                           1                                                (98/C 94/27)
which contracts are to be awarded on the basis of the
criteria laid down in Chapter 3 of Title IV, taking into
account Article 19, after the suitability of the contractors       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
not excluded under Article 24 has been checked by                  European Communities by order of the 35th Civil
contracting authorities in accordance with the criteria of         Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional
economic and financial standing and of technical                   Court) of 4 November 1997, received at the Court
knowledge or ability referred to in Articles 26 to 29, to be       Registry on 5 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
interpreted as requiring contracting authorities to accept a       the case of VR-Leasing GmbH against Margit Bertram on
tender even if it is the only tender still remaining in the        the following question:
tendering procedure? Is Article 18 sufficiently specific and
precise for it to be relied on by individuals in proceedings
under national law and, as part of Community law, to be            Do Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of
used to oppose provisions of national law?                         20 December 1985 (1), on protection of the consumer in
                                                                   respect of contracts negotiated away from business
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                     premises, cover a husband who, acting as a negotiator on
                                                                   behalf of a leasing company, causes his wife to sign a
                                                                   declaration of suretyship in their private residence?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 372, 31.12.1995, p. 31.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Thionville by judgments of that court
of 21 March 1997 in the cases of Marc Charreire v. Direc-
teur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle and Jean
 Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                (Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98)                        München (Finance Court, Munich) by order of that court
                         (98/C 94/26)                              of 22 January 1998 in the case of Peter Luksch v. Haupt-
                                                                        zollamt Weiden (Principal customs office, Weiden)
                                                                                (Case C-31/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of the Civil                                              (98/C 94/28)
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Thionville
(Regional Court, Thionville) of 21 March 1997, which
were received at the Court Registry on 3 February 1998,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for preliminary rulings in the cases of Marc Charreire v.          European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht


title: Case C-85/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — Articles 5(1) and 15(2) — Community action in the field of water policy — River basin district — Summary report and analyses — Communication thereof — None)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/25

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-85/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Articles 5(1) and 15(2) - Community action in the field of water policy - River basin district - Summary report and analyses - Communication thereof - None)
   (2008/C 51/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendants: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Failure to submit summary reports on the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts — Failure to carry out the analyses and studies provided for in Article 5(1) of that directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and a part of the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Apennines, by failing to submit a summary report on the analyses required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as provided for in Article 15(2) thereof, and by failing to carry out the analyses and the study referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-108/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — ETF v Michel (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Decision terminating the contract — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Articles 2 and 47 of the CEOS — Duty of care — Concept of interest of the service — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Rights of the defence)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2013 — ETF v Michel
   (Case T-108/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Decision terminating the contract - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Articles 2 and 47 of the CEOS - Duty of care - Concept of interest of the service - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Rights of the defence)
   2014/C 24/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Gustave Michel, successor in law to Monique Vandeuren (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents); Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents); European Chemical Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, acting as Agent); European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented initially by: V. Salvatore and subsequently by: T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents); European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent); European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: P. Goudou, acting as Agent); and European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) on 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08 Vandeuren v ETF, not yet published, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08 Vandeuren v ETF in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Training Foundation (ETF) of 23 October 2007 to terminate the contract for an indefinite period as a member of the temporary staff of Ms Monique Vandeuren and dismissed, in consequence, her claim for compensation for the pecuniary harm suffered as premature;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Refers the action back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case C-236/11: Action brought on 17 May 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/4

         Action brought on 17 May 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-236/11)
   2011/C 238/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by C. Soulay and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by applying the special scheme for travel agents even when the travel service is sold to someone other than the traveller, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306-310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission is of the view that the Italian Republic’s application of the special scheme for travel agents, inasmuch as it is not limited to services to travellers, as provided by the directive, but is extended to cover transactions between travel agencies too, is contrary to the provisions of the VAT legislation.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-149/12: Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Investrónica v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/21

         Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Investrónica v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)
   (Case T-149/12)
   2012/C 194/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olympus Imaging Corp. (Tokyo, Japan)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 31 January 2012 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM, in Case R 347/2011-4, and declare that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Community trade mark regulation, the trade mark applicant’s appeal before OHIM ought to have been dismissed and the Opposition Division’s decision refusing trade mark application No 7 014 392‘MICRO’ (mixed) in its entirety upheld;

               —

               order the party or parties which oppose this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Olympus Imaging Corporation

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MICRO’, in black and white, for goods in Class 9 (Application No 7 014 392)

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark ‘micro’, in light blue and dark blue, for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (Mark No 2736947)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration of the mark applied for refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and decision under appeal which refused the mark applied for annulled

      Plea in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 given that there is a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue.


title: Case T-176/08: Action brought on 9 May 2008 — Infeurope v Commission

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/44

         Action brought on 9 May 2008 — Infeurope v Commission
   (Case T-176/08)
   (2008/C 171/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Infeurope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the European Commission has failed to annul the decision of awarding the framework contracts under the call for tenders procedure AO/042/05 of the OHIM on software maintenance;

               —

               declare that the European Commission has failed to terminate the specific contracts concluded under the said framework contracts;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 37 002 plus 4 % interest on the amount of EUR 31 650 from 29 August 2006, plus 4 % interest on the amount of EUR 3 650 from 3 December 2007, plus 4 % interest on the amount of EUR 1 702 from 3 May 2008; respectively 8 % interest on sum of EUR 37 002 from the date of judgment;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 209 037 plus 4 % interest on the said sum from 3 May 2008, respectively 8 % interest on the said sum from the date of judgment;

               —

               order the European Commission to produce certain documents relating to the procedure for evaluating the tenders;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the declaration that the Commission failed to annul the decision taken by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) awarding multiple framework contracts for the provision of IT maintenance services under the tender procedure AO/042/05 ‘E-Alicante: software maintenance relating to OHIM core business systems (management and registration of trade marks and designs)’ (1) and that it has failed to terminate the corresponding specific contracts under the framework.
   The applicant claims that the tender process as well as the implementation of the specific contracts further to the tender suffer from a series of severe irregularities such as: the irregular award criteria, an incorrect composition of the evaluation committee, the fact that the contracts were awarded after the expiry of the period of tender offers' validity and that the OHIM agreed on various considerable changes to the terms of the specific contracts.
   The applicant claims that the OHIM, as contracting authority, had breached the principles of equal treatment, of transparency and of good administration and had misused the instrument of framework contracts. It had further infringed a number of stipulations in the Financial Regulation (2).
   The applicant claims that the Commission, as supervisory body of the OHIM (3), had failed to take appropriate action against these infringements. The applicant maintains that the discretion of the Commission whether or not to take action against the breaches of law and establish legality is reduced to zero thus entailing an obligation to act.
   Furthermore, the applicant asks to be compensated for the damages suffered as a result of the irregularities in the said tendering procedure and its subsequent implementation.

      (1)  OJ 2006/S 135-144019.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  The Article VI.4.2 of the Contract notice concerning the lodging of the appeals makes reference to the Article 118 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) which stays that ‘Referral shall be made to the Commission within 1 month of the day on which the party concerned first became aware of the act in question’.


title: Case T-397/14: Action brought on 6 June 2014  — Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales v Commission

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/30

         Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales v Commission
   (Case T-397/14)
   2014/C 245/41
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 February 2002 in Case T-86/95: Compagnie générale maritime v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Liner conferences — Intermodal transport — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Scope — Block exemption — Regulation No 1017/68 — Individual exemption — Fine)

text:
13.7.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/29
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1.    Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/985/EC of
                                                                               21 December 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                               Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/33.218 — Far Eastern Freight
                       28 February 2002                                        Conference) in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicants;
                                                                         2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
in Case T-86/95: Compagnie générale maritime v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                        3.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay four
                                                                               fifths of those incurred by the Commission and four fifths of
                                                                               those incurred by the ECTU, including those relating to the
(Competition — Liner conferences — Intermodal transport                        application for interim measures;
— Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Scope — Block
exemption — Regulation No 1017/68 — Individual exemp-                    4.    Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs,
                          tion — Fine)                                         including those relating to the application for interim measures;
                                                                         5.    Orders the ECSA and the JSA to bear their own costs and the
                        (2002/C 169/50)                                        costs of the Commission relating to their interventions;
                                                                         6.    Orders the ECTU to bear one fifth of its own costs, including
                  (Language of the case: English)                              those relating to the application for interim measures.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.95.
In Case T-86/95, Compagnie Générale Maritime, established
in Suresnes (France), Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, estab-
lished in Hamburg (Germany), Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited,
established in Tokyo (Japan), Lloyd Triestino di Navigazione
SpA, established in Trieste (Italy), AP Møller-Mærsk Line,
established in Copenhagen (Denmark), Malaysian International                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Shipping Corporation Berhad, established in Kuala Lumpur
(Malaysia), Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd, established in Tokyo,
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam (the Nether-                                          of 10 April 2002
lands), Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore
(Singapore), Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, established in               in Case T-209/00, Frank Lamberts v European Ombuds-
Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line, established in Hong                                               man (1)
Kong (China), P & O Containers Ltd, established in London
(United Kingdom), Wilh. Wilhemsen Ltd A/S, established in                (Action for damages — Admissibility — Non-contractual
Oslo (Norway), represented by P. Ruttley, Solicitor, J. Pheasant         liability — European Ombudsman — Conduct of Ombuds-
and A. Mariott, lawyers, with an address for service in                                   man in dealing with a complaint)
Luxembourg, supported by The European Community Ship-
owners’ Associations, having their registered office in Brussels
(Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an                                           (2002/C 169/51)
address for service in Luxembourg, and The Japanese Ship-
owners’ Association, having its registered office in Tokyo,                                  (Language of the case: French)
represented by F. Randolph, Barrister, and F. Murphy, Solicitor,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: B. Langeheine and
R. Lyal), supported by The European Council of Transport                 In Case T-209/00, Frank Lamberts, residing at Linkebeek
Users ASBL, established in Brussels, including The European              (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address
Shippers Council, represented by M. Cough, barrister, with an            for service in Luxembourg, against European Ombudsman
address for service in Luxembourg: Application for annulment             (Agent: J. Sant’Anna) — application for compensation for
of Commission Decision 94/985/EC of 21 December 1994                     material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/          applicant as a result of the conduct of the European Ombuds-
33.218 — Far Eastern Freight Conference) (OJ 1994 L 378,                 man in dealing with his complaint — the Court of First
p. 17), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed            Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;              K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
Y. Mottard, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2002, in
judgment on 28 February 2002, in which it:                               which it:


title: Case T-341/09: Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava and Others v OHIM (TXAKOLI)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/33

         Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava and Others v OHIM (TXAKOLI)
   (Case T-341/09)
   2009/C 256/59
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Álava (Amurrio, Spain), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Bizkaia (Leoia, Spain), Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Txakoli de Getaria (Getaria, Spain) (represented by J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 June 2009 in Case R 197/2009-2 and allow the application for registration of ‘TXAKOLI’ as a Community trade mark (collective word mark) for Classes 33, 35, 41 and 42.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Collective word mark ‘TXAKOLI’ (Application No 6 952 014) for goods and services in Classes 33, 35, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 inasmuch as that provision is not applicable to the term ‘Txakoli’ since the latter is considered to be a traditional term by Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1.


title: Case T-430/07: Action brought on 23 November 2007 — Bodegas Montebello v OHIM — Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/48

         Action brought on 23 November 2007 — Bodegas Montebello v OHIM — Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE)
   (Case T-430/07)
   (2008/C 22/91)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Montebello, S.A. (Montilla, Spain) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, M.I. Lehmann Novo, and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Montebello (limited company) (Guadalupe, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of OHIM's decision of 7 September 2007 in Case R 223/2007-2;

               —

               rejection of Community trade mark No 2.666.386;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the intervener.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Montebello (limited company)

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘MONTEBELLO Rhum Agricole’ (application No 2.266.386) for goods in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages, except beers).

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘MONTEBELLO’ (No 1.148.196) for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division upheld and annulled.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-419/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 32 and 33 — Licence — Register of Community designs — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register — Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH
   (Case C-419/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 32 and 33 - Licence - Register of Community designs - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement notwithstanding the fact that the licence has not been entered in the register - Right of the licensee to bring proceedings for infringement in order to obtain damages for its own loss))
   (2016/C 314/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee may bring proceedings alleging infringement of a registered Community design which is the subject of the licence although that licence has not been entered in the register of Community designs.

               2.

               Article 32(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the licensee can claim damages for its own loss in proceedings for infringement of a Community design brought by it in accordance with that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


title: Case C-532/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/60/EC — Money laundering and terrorist financing — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-532/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/60/EC - Money laundering and terrorist financing - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   2009/C 153/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case C-281/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between Arch Timber Protection BV and College voor de toelating van bestrĳdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings: Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal

text:
C 251/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       18.10.2003
European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, M. Bavendamm                        member countries and aligning exemptions from tax and
and I. Ní Riagáin Düro) — the Court (First Chamber),                             from customs duty in the context of travel?
composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
                                                                          ( 1)  OJ L 350, p. 12.
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          ( 2)  OJ L 345, p. 9.
                                                                          ( 3)  OJ L 105, p. 1.
                                                                          ( 4)  OJ L 133, p. 6.
1.   The appeal is dismissed;
2.   Mr. Di Pietro is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
                                                                          Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between
                                                                          1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG, 3. Touwen
                                                                          & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf Atochem
                                                                          Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
                                                                          Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de
                                                                                toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
für ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien by order of that Court                                             (Case C-281/03)
of 30 September 2002 in the case of DLD Trading
Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic                                                 (2003/C 251/04)
                             of Austria
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (Case C-216/03)                                 European Communities by judgment of the College van
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
                          (2003/C 251/03)                                 and Industry) of 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                          on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                          between 1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    3. Touwen & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für                    Atochem Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna)               Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de toelating
of 30 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on                   van bestrijdingsmiddelen on the following question:
19 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of DLD
Trading Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic
of Austria on the following questions:                                    Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay
                                                                          down additional conditions for the placing on the market and
                                                                          use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
1.   Are Regulation (EC) No 3316/94 (1) and Regulation (EC)               included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?
     No 2744/981 (2) compatible with the provisions of
     Community law relating to exemptions from customs
     duties, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (3) and
     the principle of the Customs union?
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
     Did the retroactive entry into force of Regulation (EC)              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
     No 2744/98 infringe the principles of legal certainty or             Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
     the protection of legitimate expectations?                           Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between Arch
                                                                          Timber Protection BV and College voor de toelating
                                                                          van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
3.   Are Article 5(8) of Directive 69/169/EEC (4) and the                      Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal
     national provisions transposing it, namely Paragraph 3a
     of the Verbrauchssteuer-befreiungsverordnung (Regulation                                       (Case C-281/03)
     on exemptions from excise duties) and the Umsatzsteuer-
     Verordnung, (Turnover Tax Regulations) (BGBl II                                                (2003/C 251/05)
     No 326/1997), incompatible with the purposes of harmo-
     nising turnover tax and excise duty within the Member                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     States, liberalising and facilitating travel to and from non-        European Communities by judgment of the College van
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 251/3
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade                rights either from the national scheme to the European
and Industry) of 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry                scheme or, conversely, from the European scheme to the
on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 national scheme;
between Arch Timber Protection BV and College voor de
toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal on the               2.   in that by providing that the worker concerned must
following question:                                                          expressly waive the right to transfer from the Belgian
                                                                             scheme to the European scheme or by causing an
                                                                             administrative practice to that effect, without the afore-
Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay                   mentioned comparison having been made, these provi-
down additional conditions for the placing on the market and                 sions mislead or could mislead the worker;
use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?
                                                                        3.   and in that these national provisions do not allow years of
                                                                             service as an official of the European Union to be taken
                                                                             into account for the purposes of the grant of an early
                                                                             national pension?
                                                                        (1) English special edition Series-I I Chapter 1968(II) p. 475.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of
20 May 2003 in the case of Gregorio MY against
            L'Office National des Pensions (O.N.P.)
                        (Case C-293/03)                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesver-
                                                                        waltungsgerichts by order of that Court of 30 April
                                                                        2003 in the case of Federal Republic of Germany, repre-
                        (2003/C 251/06)                                 sented by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
                                                                        Technologie against ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co.
                                                                            KG and Firma O2 (Germany) GmbH and Co. OHG
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court) of 20 May 2003,                             (Cases C-327/03 and C-328/03)
received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a prelimin-
ary ruling in the case of Gregorio MY against L'Office                                             (2003/C 251/07)
National des Pensions (O.N.P.) (National Pensions Office) on
the following questions:
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Are national provisions, such as the Belgian Law of 21 May              European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungs-
1991 (establishing a certain relationship between the Belgian           gerichts (Federal Administrative Court) of 30 April 2003,
pension schemes and those of international public law bodies)           received at the Court Registry on 28 July 2003, for a preli-
and the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Belgian Royal              minary ruling in the case of Federal Republic of Germany,
Decree of 23 December 1996 (implementing Articles 15, 16                represented by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und
and 17 of the Law of 26 July 1996 modernising social security           Technologie against ISIS Multimedia Net GmbH und Co. KG
and ensuring the viability of the statutory pension schemes), or        and Firma O2 (Germany) GmbH and Co. OHG on the follow-
Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials          ing questions:
of the European Communities, not contrary to Articles 2, 3,
17, 18, 39, 40, 42 and 283 of the EC Treaty and Article 7
of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1):               1.   Is Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                             of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common frame-
                                                                             work for general authorisations and individual licences in
1.   in that these national provisions and the Staff Regulations             the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117,
     do not allow a citizen of the European Union, such as the               p. 15) to be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of the
     plaintiff, whose professional career has been carried out               allocation of telephone numbers by the national regula-
     first in an undertaking or in a national public service and             tory authority, a fee taking account of the economic value
     then in the European Union civil service, or vice versa, to             of the telephone numbers allocated may be imposed even
     compare the pension benefits which he would obtain                      though a telecommunications undertaking operating on
     under each scheme, be it national or European, through                  the same market and occupying a dominant position on it
     transfer of rights acquired under the other schemes, and                took over free of charge from its predecessor in law, the
     based on this comparison, to request transfer of these                  former State undertaking with a monopoly, a very large


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 21 March 2002 in Case C-264/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden): Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Charges for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording the formation of a capital company)

text:
C 144/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Marie-Josée Verwayen-Boelen and Rijksdienst voor                            between Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH and Land Baden-
Arbeidsvoorziening, on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of                Württemberg, on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971                  335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the
on the application of social security schemes to employed                   raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412),
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their                   as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
families moving within the Community, as amended and                        (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December                  of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric,
1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber)                        R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J. N. Cunha Rodri-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von                      gues, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Bahr, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which
C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger;                    it has ruled:
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2002, in
which it has ruled:
Under Article 67(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of their families moving               Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council                     taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, the application               303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that
of the rules on the aggregation of periods of insurance or employment       charges constitute taxes for the purposes of that directive where they
laid down in Article 67(1) and (2) is, except in the cases expressly        are payable for the drawing up of a notarially attested act recording
referred to in Article 67(3), subject to the condition that the person      a transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, under a
concerned has completed lastly periods of insurance or employment in        system where the notaries are civil servants and the charges are paid
accordance with the provisions of the legislation under which the           in part to the public authority which employs them, and used for the
unemployment benefits are claimed.                                          financing of its official business, such as the system in force in the
                                                                            district of the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                            Where they amount to a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335,
                                                                            as amended, charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
                                                                            attested act recording the formation of a capital company are, in
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     principle, prohibited by Article 10(c) thereof.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            21 March 2002
                                                                            The fact that charges payable for the drawing up of a notarially
in Case C-264/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   attested act recording the formation of a capital company, which
the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden): Gründerzentrum-                            increase directly in proportion to the nominal value of the capital
       Betriebs-GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)                           raised, cannot exceed a certain maximum, is not sufficient, by itself,
                                                                            to render them duties paid by way of fees or dues within the meaning
                                                                            of Directive 69/335, as amended, where the amount of that
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Raising of                      maximum bears no relation to the costs of the service for which the
capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Charges for the drawing                    charges constitute the consideration.
up of a notarially attested act recording the formation of a
                          capital company)
                           (2002/C 144/17)
                    (Language of the case: German)                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-264/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Müllheim/Baden (Germany) for a