title: Case C-190/07: Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/10

         Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-190/07)
   (2007/C 129/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/117/EC (1) of 22 December 2004 amending Directives 66/401/EEC, 66/402/EEC, 2002/54/EC, 2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC as regards examinations carried out under official supervision and equivalence of seed produced in third countries, or by failing in any event to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/117/EC expired on 1 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 14, p. 18.


title: Case C-170/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) by order of that court of 15 December 2004 in Societe Denkavit International BV and Denkavit France Sarl v Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) by order of that court of 15 December 2004 in Societe Denkavit International BV and Denkavit France Sarl v Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry
   (Case C-170/05)
   (2005/C 155/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Conseil d'Etat (France) of 15 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 15 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Societe Denkavit International BV and Denkavit France Sarl and Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry on the following questions:

               1.

               Is a system which imposes the burden of taxation on a parent company in receipt of dividends which is not domiciled in France, while relieving parent companies which are domiciled in France of a similar burden, open to challenge in the light of the principle of freedom of establishment?

               2.

               Is such a system of deduction at source itself open to challenge in the light of the principle of freedom of establishment, or, where a taxation agreement between France and another Member State authorising that deduction at source provides for the tax due in that other Member State to be set off against the tax charged in accordance with the disputed system, must that agreement be taken into account in assessing the compatibility of the system with the principle of freedom of establishment?

               3.

               In the event that the second alternative set out at 2 above is held to apply, is the existence of the aforementioned agreement sufficient to ensure that the disputed system may be regarded merely as a means of apportioning the taxable item between the two States concerned without any effect on the undertakings, or must the fact that a parent company which is not domiciled in France may be unable to set off tax as provided for by the agreement mean that this system must be regarded as incompatible with the principle of freedom of establishment?


title: Case T-553/13: Action brought on 17 October 2013 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/36

         Action brought on 17 October 2013 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy
   (Case T-553/13)
   2013/C 367/65
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Mabger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s award decision dated 7 August 2013 in relation to the open Call for Tenders F4E-ADM-0464 (OJ 2012/S 213-352451) for the award of the Framework Service Contract in cascade entitled ‘Provision of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Projects to Fusion for Energy’ (OJ 2013/S 198-342743);

               —

               Order the defendant to provide the applicants with the compensation of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to comply with EU legislation, as it proceeded with the evaluation of tenders and the award of the contract after the expiration of the validity of tenders.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to comply with EU legislation through the infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The defendant provided the applicants with an Evaluation Report which did not contain any concrete evaluation comments concerning the applicants’ tender.


title: Case T-178/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by MPS Group Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/17

         Action brought on 17 May 2004 by MPS Group Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-178/04)
   (2004/C 201/38)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2004 by MPS Group Inc., Jacksonville, Florida, USA represented by Ms K. O'Rourke and Mr P. Kavanagh Solicitors.
   Modis-Distribuiçao Centralizada SA was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 4 February 2004 insofar as it upheld Opposition number B000170599 with respect to the following services in class 35: ‘Employment agency services, recruitment consultancy services; payroll preparation services; time recording services; provision of temporary and permanent staff’;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision insofar as it covers the following services in class 35: ‘Employment agency services, recruitment consultancy services, provision of temporary and permanent staff’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               MPS Group Inc.

               Community trade mark sought:

               The Community trade mark application No 778795 ‘MODIS’ for services in class 35 (employment agency services, recruitment consultancy services, payroll preparation services,...), class 41 (staff training services) and class 42 (psychometric testing)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Modis Distribuiçao Centralizada SA

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The Portuguese trade mark ‘MODIS’ for services in class 35 (Advertising, business management and business administration)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the Community trade mark application for classes 35 and 41 and admission of the application for class 42.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal :

               Annulment of the Decision of the Opposition Division as it upheld the opposition with respect to the services applied for in Class 41, remittal of the case for further prosecution to the examiner and rejection of the appeal for the remainder.

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Articles 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b)of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark (1) in deciding that the services concerned were similar.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)


title: Case C-398/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 October 2009 — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning and KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 14 October 2009 — Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning and KID-Holding A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-398/09)
   2009/C 312/37
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Lady & Kid A/S, Direct Nyt ApS, A/S Harald Nyborg Isenkram- og Sportsforretning and KID-Holding A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Court’s judgment of 14 January 1997 in Joined Cases C-192/95 (1) to C-218/95 Comateb and Others to be interpreted as meaning that the passing-on of an unlawful levy on a product presupposes that the levy is passed on to the buyer of the product in the individual transaction, or may the passing-on in the prices also take place in the prices of other products in completely different transactions, either before or after the relevant sale of products, for example, with the result that an overall assessment is made of the passing-on over a four-year period involving a large number of product groups, including both imported and non-imported products?

               2.

               Is the Community law concept of ‘passing-on’ to be understood as meaning that an unlawful levy on a sale of products may be regarded as passed on only if the price of the product is higher than that price which applied immediately before the levy was introduced, or may the levy also be regarded as passed on where the undertaking subject to the levy, at the same time as the introduction of the unlawful levy, saved on other levies charged on other bases, and the undertaking therefore maintained its prices unchanged?

               3.

               Is the Community law concept of ‘unjust enrichment’ to be understood as meaning that the reimbursement of an unlawful levy on a sale of products may be regarded as giving rise to unjust enrichment, where the undertaking, before or after the sale of the taxable product, has made a saving as a result of the abolition of other levies charged on other bases, if it is assumed that that abolition of other levies also benefits other undertakings, including undertakings which did not pay the unlawful levy or only paid it to a lesser extent?

               4.

               If it is assumed that an unlawful levy, as a result of its structure, has had the effect that proportionately more has been paid in levies by undertakings which imported products than by undertakings which to a greater extent purchased domestic products, and, at the same time as the unlawful levy was introduced, another lawful levy was charged on another basis which proportionately affected both undertakings to the same extent, irrespective of the composition of the undertaking’s purchases, then guidance is sought on the following:

                           (i)

                           whether Community law allows for whole or partial refusal to reimburse the unlawful levy to an undertaking which imports products on grounds of passing-on and unjust enrichment, in so far as the refusal leads to a situation where the undertaking, as a result of having paid relatively more of the unlawful levy than a corresponding undertaking which purchased equivalent goods domestically, will thereby, all other things being equal, be placed in a worse position as a result of the tax restructuring and the refusal to reimburse than corresponding undertakings which to a greater extent purchased domestic goods;

                           (ii)

                           whether the reimbursement of the unlawful levy in the relevant situation may conceptually give rise to ‘unjust enrichment’ and may therefore be refused, if the reimbursement — even if the levy is regarded as having been passed on — is necessary in order to achieve a situation in which the effect of the tax restructuring, after any reimbursement, all other things being equal, remains the same for undertakings which imported products as for undertakings which purchased domestic products;

                           (iii)

                           whether refusal to reimburse in such a situation, which leads to undertakings which to a greater extent purchased domestic products and thus obtained an advantage in relation to undertakings which to a greater extent imported products, is otherwise contrary to Community law, including the principle of equal treatment; and

                           (iv)

                           whether the answer to question 3 means that it is not justified to refuse reimbursement of an unlawfully charged levy on grounds of unjust enrichment, to the extent that such reimbursement merely cancels out the advantage for those undertakings which purchased domestic products in relation to undertakings which to a greater extent imported products.

      (1)  ECR [1997] I-165


title: Case C-96/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 15 February 2000 in the case of Rudolf Gabriel against Schlank & Schick GmbH

text:
27.5.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/25
also applicable to situations in which goods of the type                Action brought on 15 March 2000 by the Commission of
specified therein are, in the course of transit between two             the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
countries not belonging to the European Community, tempor-
arily detained by the customs authorities in a Member State on
the basis of that regulation, at the request of a holder of rights                                (Case C-98/00)
who claims that his rights have been infringed and whose
undertaking has its registered office in a non-member country,
but whose mark is registered in a Member State of the                                            (2000/C 149/46)
European Community?
(1) OJ 1999 L 27, p. 1.                                                 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Richard Wain-
                                                                        wright, Principal Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, and
                                                                        Panayiotis Panayiotopoulos, a national civil service Expert on
                                                                        secondment to the Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
                                                                        the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 15 February 2000                  The Commission of the European Communities claims that
in the case of Rudolf Gabriel against Schlank & Schick                  the Court should:
                             GmbH
                         (Case C-96/00)                                 — declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative,
                                                                            to communicate to the Commission, within the period
                                                                            prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                        (2000/C 149/45)                                     visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                            92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                   application of Community rules on the procurement
(Supreme Court, Austria) of 15 February 2000, received at the               procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
Court Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                transport and telecommunications sectors, the Hellenic
the case of Rudolf Gabriel v Schlank & Schick GmbH on the                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
following questions:                                                        and that directive.
For the purposes of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction             — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters of 27 September 1968, does the provision in Para-
graph 5j of the Austrian Consumer Protection Law (Konsumen-
tenschutzgesetz (KSchG), BGBl 1979/140, in the version of
Art I, para. 2 of the Austrian Distance Selling Law (Fernabsatz-        Pleas in law and main arguments
Gesetz), BGBl I 1999/185), which entitles certain consumers
to claim from undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won
by them where the undertakings send (or have sent) them                 The binding nature of the third paragraph of Articles 249 and
prize notifications or other similar communications worded              10 EC (ex Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) requires
so as to give the impression that they have won a particular            Member States to take the measures necessary to transpose
prize, constitute:                                                      directives into their legal system before the expiry of the period
                                                                        prescribed for that purpose and to notify those measures to
(1) a contractual claim under Article 13(3);                            the Commission immediately. When the relevant time-limit
                                                                        expired on 1 January 1998 the Hellenic Republic had not
     or                                                                 notified the Commission of measures transposing the directive
                                                                        in question into national law.
(2) a contractual claim under Article 5(1);
     or
                                                                        (1) OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 14.
(3) a claim in respect of a tort, delict or quasi-delict under
     Article 5(3)


title: Case T-137/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Portela v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Marketing of defective digital thermometers bearing the marking CE — Failure to act on the part of the Commission — Causal connection — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Portela v Commission
   (Case T-137/07) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Marketing of defective digital thermometers bearing the marking ‘CE’ - Failure to act on the part of the Commission - Causal connection - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
   (2009/C 55/46)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda (Queluz, Portugal) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Claim requesting that the Court of First Instance should impose on the Commission the obligation to act in accordance with Article 14b of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), by ordering the certification company TÜV Rheinland Product Safety GmbH, through the Federal Republic of Germany, to activate, in favour of the applicant, the mandatory civil liability insurance provided for in point 6 of Annex XI to Directive 93/42, which that company took out, and, if the alleged damage cannot be remedied by the principal claim, in the alternative, a claim for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of the various omissions on the part of the Commission
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares, Lda is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case F-94/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Staff Committee — Election of the Staff Committee members — Validity — Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations — EEAS electoral regulations — First ballot — Quorum not attained — Extension of the polling period — Supplementary extension of the polling period — Failure to organise a second ballot — Unlawfulness)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS
   (Case F-94/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - EEAS staff - Staff Committee - Election of the Staff Committee members - Validity - Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - EEAS electoral regulations - First ballot - Quorum not attained - Extension of the polling period - Supplementary extension of the polling period - Failure to organise a second ballot - Unlawfulness))
   (2016/C 191/71)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Oren Wolff (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T.Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: initially M. Silva and S. Marquardt, Agents, then G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, and lastly G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s challenge brought against the result of the elections to the EEAS Staff Committee.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 23 April 2015 by which the European External Action Service rejected Oren Wolff’s request seeking that the result of the elections of the members of the Staff Committee be deemed invalid;

               2.

               Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wolff.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 07/09/2015, p. 83.


title: Case T-109/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Othman v Council

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/23

         Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Othman v Council
   (Case T-109/13)
   2013/C 129/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               consequently, annul Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 and Regulation No 1117/2012 (EU) of 29 November 2012 and their subsequent implementing measures, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of her action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in the context of Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council.
       (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.


title: Case C-632/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Costin Popescu v Guvernul României and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Road transport — Driving licences — Directive 2006/126/EC — Article 13(2) — Concept of ‘entitlement to drive granted before 19 January 2013’ — National legislation transposing the directive — Obligation to obtain a driving licence imposed on persons who were allowed to ride a moped without a licence before the entry into force of that legislation)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Costin Popescu v Guvernul României and Others
   (Case C-632/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Road transport - Driving licences - Directive 2006/126/EC - Article 13(2) - Concept of ‘entitlement to drive granted before 19 January 2013’ - National legislation transposing the directive - Obligation to obtain a driving licence imposed on persons who were allowed to ride a moped without a licence before the entry into force of that legislation))
   (2017/C 195/04)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Costin Popescu

      Defendants: Guvernul României, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Direcția Regim Permise de Conducere si Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor, Direcția Rutieră, Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, in particular Article 13(2), must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, adopted in order to transpose that directive into national law, which terminates the authorisation to ride mopeds without holding a driving licence, the issue of which is subject to passing tests or examinations similar to those required for driving other motor vehicles.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case T-475/17: Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Rogesa v Commission

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/17

         Action brought on 2 August 2017 — Rogesa v Commission
   (Case T-475/17)
   (2017/C 318/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and A. Sitzer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 20 June 2017 or, in the alternative, the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2017 refusing the applicant’s confirmatory application of 29 May 2017 (Reference GestDem No 2017/1788); and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law: the conditions governing entitlement to access to the documents were satisfied

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the first paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation No 1367/2006, (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (2) since it is entitled to have access to the documents which it requested.

               2.

               Second plea in law: there are no grounds for refusal under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the requested documents do not contain commercially sensitive data within the meaning of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and that there is, in any event, an overriding public interest justifying disclosure of the documents.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the ground for refusal pursuant to the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, under which access to a document may be refused where its disclosure would undermine the protection of court proceedings and of legal advice, also does not obtain since Case C-80/16 (ArcelorMittal Atlantique and Lorraine) pending before the Court of Justice was practically concluded by the judgment of 26 July 2017.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that the Commission was, in any event, obliged to grant partial access, if necessary by redacting confidential data. The Commission’s decision therefore also infringes Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality under Article 5(4) TEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law: the Commission committed a procedural error

                           —

                           Lastly, the applicant submits that Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been infringed. Despite two extensions of the time limit, most recently for an indefinite period, no decision had been taken, by the date on which the action was lodged, on the confirmatory application made by the applicant on 29 May 2017. Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides only for the possibility of a single extension of the time limit by 15 working days and not an extension for an indefinite period.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Cases C-88/02, C-89/02, C-95/02, C-96/02 and C-98/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale Di Brescia, Seconda Sezione Civile by order of that Court of 21 January 2002 in the civil case of Società Dolomite Italiana — SDI s.p.a. (C-88/02), Dolomite Franchi s.p.a. (C-89/02) against Ministero delle Finanze; by order of 8 October 2001 Ugine Srl (C-95/02), TOMAR Srl (C-96/02), Rezzola Scavi Srl (97/02) and Villa Gemma SpA (C-98/02) against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
C 131/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.6.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale Di              Action brought on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of
Brescia, Seconda Sezione Civile by order of that Court of              the European Communities against the Federal Republic
21 January 2002 in the civil case of Società Dolomite                                              of Germany
Italiana — SDI s.p.a. (C-88/02), Dolomite Franchi s.p.a.
(C-89/02) against Ministero delle Finanze; by order of                                           (Case C-104/02)
8 October 2001 Ugine Srl (C-95/02), TOMAR Srl (C-96/
02), Rezzola Scavi Srl (97/02) and Villa Gemma SpA                                               (2002/C 131/09)
           (C-98/02) against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
  (Cases C-88/02, C-89/02, C-95/02, C-96/02 and C-98/02)
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
                                                                       nities on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Günter Wilms, of its Legal
                        (2002/C 131/08)                                Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                       of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
                                                                       C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Il Tribunale Di Brescia          (1) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
(Brescia Regional Court) Seconda Sezione Civile (Second Civil                infringed its obligations under Article 49 of Commission
Chamber) of 21 January 2002, received at the Court Registry                  Regulation (EEC) No 1214/92 (1) of 21 April 1992 on
on 14 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the civil cases                provisions for the implementation of the Community
of Società Dolomite Italiana — SDI s.p.a. (C-88/02), Dolomite                transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that
Franchi s.p.a. (C-89/02) against Ministero delle Finanze; by                 procedure and/or Article 379 of Commission Regulation
order of 8 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on                   (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down
18 March 2002, in the cases of Ugine Srl (C-95/02), TOMAR                    provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
Srl (C-96/02), Rezzola Scavi Srl (97/02) and Villa Gemma SpA                 (EEC) No 2913/92 (3) establishing the Community Cus-
(C-98/02) against Ministero delle Finanze, on the following                  toms Code in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Council
questions:                                                                   Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May
                                                                             1989 (4) implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom
                                                                             on the system of the Communities’ own resources, by
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December                  transferring own resources to the Community too late;
      1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
      supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-           (2) declare that the Federal Republic of Germany is obliged,
      lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/               pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 for the
      EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the               period up to 31 May 2000 and Article 11 of Regulation
      raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that the                   1150/2000 (5) for the period after 31 May 2000, to pay
      administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for             into the Community budget the interest accrued as a
      registration of other company documents for each of the                result of the late transfer;
      years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
      sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and              (3) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for
      private limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other
      companies?
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
2.    Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with                Article 49 of Regulation No 1214/92 (on the implementation
      Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on          of the Community transit procedure) and Article 379 of
      the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the           Regulation No 2454/93 (implementing the Customs Code) set
      sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated           a clear and mandatory time-limit by which the customs
      according to the legal rate in force at the date on which        authorities of the Member States must initiate post-clearance
      that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not            recovery proceedings. This is not purely a procedural time-
      according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with             limit. Had it intended to do so, the legislature would have
      respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as         identified such a time-limit by using less binding wording. The
      subsequently amended?                                            intention of the legislature and the unambiguous wording of
                                                                       the statute permit solely the conclusion that Article 49 of
                                                                       Regulation No 1214/92 and Article 379(2) of Regulation
                                                                       No 2454/93 do not merely provide for action which the State
(1) OJ L 249 of 3.10.1969, p. 25.                                      ought to take but, rather, prescribe a binding obligation. Post-
                                                                       clearance recovery must be carried out by no later than the
                                                                       expiry of a period of 14 months. Since both the debtor and
                                                                       the amount of the debt to be claimed from him are known to
                                                                       the custom authorities by that stage, the debtor must be


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien): Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin — Bilateral convention between a Member State and a non-member country protecting indications of geographical source from that non-member country — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Article 307 EC — Succession of States in respect of treaties)

text:
C 7/6                    EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                          of 18 November 2003
                       of 20 November 2003                                   in Case C-216/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Handelsgericht Wien): Budějovický Budvar, národní
                                                                                podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (1)
in Case C-212/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Innsbruck): Margarete Unterpertinger                       (Protection of geographical indications and designations of
       v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter (1)                       origin — Bilateral convention between a Member State and
                                                                             a non-member country protecting indications of geographical
                                                                             source from that non-member country — Articles 28 EC and
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided                   30 EC — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Article 307 EC
in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions                             — Succession of States in respect of treaties)
                     — Expert medical report)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/09)
                            (2004/C 7/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-216/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
In Case C-212/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Budějo-
EC by the Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) for a preliminary                vický Budvar, národní podnik and Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and 307 EC,
Margarete Unterpertinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt                    and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
der Arbeiter, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth            the protection of geographical indications and designations of
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                           origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                   17 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 83, p. 3), the Court, composed of:
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and the Court’s case-              V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rappor-
law resulting, in particular, from Case C-384/98 D. v W.                     teur), C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of
[2000] ECR I-6795, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth                 R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges; C. Stix-                   Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                    given a judgment on 18 November 2003, in which it has
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November               ruled:
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             1.    Article 28 EC and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                         14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                         and designations of origin for agricultural products and
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                   foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/
tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that             97 of 17 March 1997, do not preclude the application of a
the exemption from value added tax under that provision does not                   provision of a bilateral agreement between a Member State and
apply to the services of a doctor consisting of making an expert report            a non-member country under which a simple and indirect
on a person’s state of health in order to support or exclude a claim               indication of geographical origin from that non-member country
for payment of a disability pension. The fact that the medical expert              is accorded protection in the importing Member State, whether
was instructed by a court or pension insurance institution is irrelevant           or not there is any risk of consumers being misled, and the
in that respect.                                                                   import of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State
                                                                                may be prevented.
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                   2.    Article 28 EC precludes the application of a provision of a
                                                                                bilateral agreement between a Member State and a non-
                                                                                member country under which a name which in that country
                                                                                does not directly or indirectly refer to the geographical source of
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/7
      the product that it designates is accorded protection in the           ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against
      importing Member State, whether or not there is any risk of            Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others on the interpretation of
      consumers being misled, and the import of a product lawfully           Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
      marketed in another Member State may be prevented.                     President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha
                                                                             Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
3.    The first paragraph of Article 307 EC is to be interpreted as          teur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
      permitting a court of a Member State, subject to the findings to       Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
      be made by that court having regard inter alia to the criteria set     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      out in this judgment, to apply the provisions of bilateral             6 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
      agreements such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
      concluded between that State and a non-member country and
      according protection to a name from the non-member country,            National legislation which prohibits on pain of criminal penalties the
      even where those provisions prove to be contrary to the EC             pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding
      Treaty rules, on the ground that they concern an obligation            offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence
      resulting from agreements concluded before the date of the             or authorisation from the Member State concerned constitutes a
      accession of the Member State concerned to the European                restriction on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
      Union. Pending the success of one of the methods referred to in        services provided for in Articles 43 and 49 EC respectively. It is for
      the second paragraph of Article 307 EC in eliminating any              the national court to determine whether such legislation, taking
      incompatibilities between an agreement predating that accession        account of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the
      and the Treaty, the first paragraph of that article permits that       aims which might justify it, and whether the restrictions it imposes
      State to continue to apply such an agreement in so far as it           are disproportionate in the light of those objectives.
      contains obligations which remain binding on that State under
      international law.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 6 November 2003                                                            of 25 November 2003
in Case C-243/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-278/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno): Piergiorgio Gambelli and                                         ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                              Others (1)
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment
(Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services —                      of the Court establishing such failure — Non-compliance —
Collection of bets on sporting events in one Member State                    Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Penalty payment
and transmission by internet to another Member State —                           — Quality of bathing water — Directive 76/160/EEC)
Prohibition enforced by criminal penalties — Legislation in
a Member State which reserves the right to collect bets to
                           certain bodies)                                                                (2004/C 7/11)
                           (2004/C 7/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-278/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-243/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz
by the Tribunale di Ascoli Piceno (Italy) for a preliminary                  Vaamonde): Application, first, for a declaration that, by not


title: Case F-6/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Kröppelin v Council

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Kröppelin v Council
   (Case F-6/05)
   (2008/C 197/75)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


title: Case T-179/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/26

         Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)
   (Case T-179/15)
   (2015/C 190/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor, and J. Hill, Barrister)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 12 036 265

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2015 in Case R 2252/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1) (c) in conjunction with Article 7(1) (b) and Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-80/00: Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
Communities (Agents N. Khan and F. Randolph) — application                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of
7 April 1998, imposing a provisional antidumping duty on                                         of 23 March 2000
imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the
People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan             in Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud v Commission
and Turkey (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19), the Court of First                                    of the European Communities (1)
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made           (Action for annulment and compensation — National expert
an order on 28 January 2000 to the following effect:                      seconded to the Commission — Cost of accommodation —
                                                                          Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Proceedings brought
1. There is no need to adjudicate upon the application in this case.                       out of time — Inadmissibility)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.                                                           (2000/C 176/39)
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud, a national expert
                                                                          on secondment to the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by H. Masse-
                                                                          Dessen, advocate with a right of audience before the Conseil
                                                                          d’État and the Cour de Cassation, and V. Ecker, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               at the latter’s Chambers, 77 Boulevard Grande-Duchesse
                                                                          Charlotte, v Commission of the European Communities
                       of 30 March 2000                                   (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application,
                                                                          first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 June
in Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo v European Central                  1999 refusing to pay the applicant’s accommodation expenses
                              Bank (1)                                    and, second, for compensation for the loss resulting therefrom
                                                                          — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
(Notice calling for applications for posts in the Legal Service           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 March 2000,
of the European Central Bank — Application for annulment                  the operative part of which is as follows:
            and compensation — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                        (2000/C 176/38)
                                                                          2. The applicant is to pay all the costs.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
In Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo, residing in Madrid,
represented by Antonio Mendez Garcı́a, of the Madrid Bar,
2nd Floor, Calle Bravo Murillo, 28015 Madrid, v European
Central Bank (Agents: Antonio Sàiñz de Vicuña and Chiara
Zilioli) — application for annulment of the notice calling for
applications for posts in the Legal Service of the European               Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação
Central Bank, published in Official Journal C 159 A of 26 May             Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
1998, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                      European Communities
(Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made                                       (Case T-80/00)
an order on 30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                                (2000/C 176/40)
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                                 ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
                                                                          whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
                                                                          João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the
                                                                          Lisbon Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 176/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             B. Heading 14.2.5 (Reproduction of documents)
a) Declare admissible the present action and, accordingly,
    annul the decision of the Commission of the European                (a) I n a d e q u a t e s t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s
    Communities approving the claim for payment of the
    balance relating to file 890365 P1 of 30 November 1999,             In the present case, the applicant can discern no grounds
    notified to the applicant on 27 January 2000 by way of              relating to two essential aspects concerning the use of paper
    decision No 00724 of the DAFSE — Departamento para                  for the courses and the price of photocopying.
    os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu;
                                                                        Accordingly, the contested decision is vitiated by an inadequate
b) Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               statement of reasons, contrary to Article 253 EC, so that it
                                                                        must, accordingly, be annulled with all the legal consequences
                                                                        that such annulment entails.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (b) B r e a c h      of      the      principle           of     pro-
The applicant is a non-profit-making association of undertak-                 portionality
ings incorporated under Portuguese law.
                                                                        The Commission bases its decision on inappropriate grounds
The project at issue, intended for the vocational training of           unsuited to a rational assessment of the costs of reproducing
249 persons, which contained an application for financial               documents.
contribution which the national authority — DAFSE — in
Lisbon, submitted on behalf of the applicant in the present             Accordingly, the contested decision must be annulled also on
case, was approved by the Commission by way of Decision                 the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality in so
C(89)0570 of 22 March 1989 involving total funding to the               far as concerns its appropriateness.
tune of PTE 157 397 822, of which PTE 86 568 802 were the
ESF share and PTE 70 829 020 were to be borne by the
Portuguese social security budget.
                                                                        C. Heading 14.3.1(b) (Management of the courses/non-
                                                                             teaching technical staff)
Although the reduction of the amount claimed by way of
payment of the balance concerns six headings (Headings
14.1.5, 14.2.3, 14.2.5, 14.3.1(a), 14.3.1(b), 14.3.9), the appli-       (a) I n a d e q u a t e s t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s
cant restricts its action to only four of them, since it
acknowledges, so far as concerns headings 14.1.5 (funding for           The contested decision is also vitiated by an inadequate
trainees) and 14.3.1(a) (teachers’ salaries) that the amounts           statement of reasons so far as concerns this heading, thereby
paid exceeded the limits provided for in Decision No                    infringing Article 253 EC, so that it must, accordingly, be
20/MTSS/87 and Decision No 21/MTSS/87 of the Ministero                  annulled with all the legal consequences that such annulment
do Trabalho e da Segurança Social (Ministry for Labour and              entails.
Social Security).
The applicant thus concentrates its arguments on the remain-            (b) E r r o n e o u s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e f a c t s
ing four headings on the ground that the reductions are
manifestly unlawful.                                                    Under this heading, the decision is further vitiated by a
                                                                        manifest, twofold, error in respect of the various facts, so that
                                                                        the decision should, on that ground, be annulled.
A. Heading 14.2.3 (Recruitment and selection of course
     participants)
                                                                        D. Heading 14.3.9 (Hire and rental charges)
Inadequate statement of reasons                                         With regard also to this heading, the decision is unlawful
                                                                        inasmuch as it erroneously assesses the facts.
The Commission decided to reduce its contribution by PTE
559 500 solely as a result of the ‘application of the test of           The reasonable nature of the expenditure claimed by the ACA
reasonableness when analysing such expenditure’. By merely              under the heading of hire and rental charges cannot be judged
relying on the ‘test of reasonableness’ and on ‘excessive               against the costs charged by the undertaking supplying it but
expenditure’, the contested decision is vitiated by an inadequate       by the market values in force at the material time.
statement of reasons, thus infringing Article 253 EC, so that,
accordingly, it must be annulled with all the legal consequences
that such annulment entails.


title: Case C-200/03: Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 158/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            5.7.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,                       Customs Code or must the view be taken that in respect
Antwerp, by judgment of that Court of 7 May 2003 in the                         of those goods no customs debt has yet arisen?
case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or,                      4.    If the answer to the first question is negative must goods
Anzor, 4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili,                        which, even if not intentionally, were declared under an
Badri, 7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean                           incorrect designation/commercial designation be regard-
System Transport BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf                              ed as having been introduced unlawfully into the customs
Louis, 10. United Logisitic Partners BVBA, 11. Decock,                          territory of the Community (in other words imported in
Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris, Johannes Marie-Louise, and                        breach of the provisions of Articles 38 to 41 inclusive
        13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette Leonie Julienne                             and of the second indent of Article 177 of the Community
                                                                                Customs Code) as a result of which the customs debt in
                          (Case C-195/03)                                       respect of those goods arises under Article 202 of the
                                                                                Community Customs Code and the person making the
                          (2003/C 158/23)                                       summary declaration or the declaration for a customs
                                                                                procedure, even if with an incorrect designation/commer-
                                                                                cial designation, may be deemed to be the customs debtor
                                                                                only if he may be regarded as a debtor within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 202(3) of the Community Customs Code?
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep,
Antwerp, (Criminal Court of Appeal) of 7 May 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 12 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Ministerie van Financiën against 1. Papismedov,
Merabi, 2. Geldof, Eddy Pierre Georgette, 3. Ben-Or, Anzor,
4. Peer, Rami, 5. Peer, Micha, 6. Tavdidischvili, Badri,
7. Janssens, Jozef Julien Maria, 8. Transocean System Transport
BVBA, 9. Hoste, Jean Paul Gustaaf Louis, 10. United Logisitic             Action brought on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of
Partners BVBA, 11. Decock, Frank Jozef Hilda, 12. Joris,                  the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Johannes Marie-Louise, and 13. Vanbelleghem, Georgette                                                 Luxembourg
Leonie Julienne on the following questions:
                                                                                (Case C-200/03)
1.    Must goods in respect of which a summary declaration
      was submitted with an incorrect designation/commercial
                                                                                (2003/C 158/24)
      designation (‘cookware’ instead of cigarettes), or goods
      which were declared under an incorrect designation/
      commercial designation for the purposes of a customs
      procedure (such as the procedure for external Community             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      customs transit), be regarded as being lawfully introduced          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      into the customs territory of the Community and,                    ties on 13 May 2003 by the Commission of the European
      accordingly, as being under customs supervision (tempor-            Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
      ary storage or customs procedure), notwithstanding the              acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      fact that, even if not intentionally, the goods bore an
      incorrect designation/commercial designation?
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.    If the answer to the first question is affirmative must the
      view be taken, in the case of removal from customs                  —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      supervision of goods which, even if not intentionally,                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      were declared under an incorrect designation/commercial                   Council Directive 93/99/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the
      designation, that the customs debt arises under                           subject of additional measures concerning the official
      Article 203 of the Community Customs Code and must                        control of foodstuffs ( 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      the person liable to comply with the obligations arising                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
      out of temporary storage of the goods or from use of the
      customs procedure under which the goods (even if under              —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      an incorrect designation) were placed, also be regarded as
      a debtor in respect of the customs debt?
3.    If the answer to the first question is affirmative, on              Pleas in law and main arguments
      establishment by the customs authorities that the goods
      under customs supervision were declared, even if not
      intentionally, under an incorrect designation/commercial            The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
      designation, whilst the goods had not (by then) been                1 November 1998.
      removed from customs supervision and the customs
      authorities still had access to the goods, must the customs
      debt in respect of the goods which were declared under              (1 ) OJ L 290 of 24.11.1993, p. 14.
      an incorrect designation/commercial designation be
      regarded as arising under Article 204 of the Community


title: Case T-449/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/35

         Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)
   (Case T-449/17)
   (2017/C 300/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SEVENFRIDAY’ — Application for registration No 13 500 533

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 2292/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar that it rejected the appeal lodged by Sevenfriday AB against the decision B252649 of 10 October 2016 and consequently allow the application No 16500533 to proceed to registration as EU trade mark;

               —

               subordinately, annul the contested decision and revoke at least insofar goods in class 9 are concerned.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/14

         Removal from the register of Case C-160/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/37)

      Language of the case: French

   By order of 4 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-160/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-602/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — Jenkinson v Council and Others

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/17

         Action brought on 23 October 2015 — Jenkinson v Council and Others
   (Case T-602/15)
   (2016/C 090/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Keery, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European External Action Service (EEAS) and European Union Joint Action ‘Eulex Kosovo’

      Form of order sought

   Principally:

               – 1.

               With regard to the rights derived from the private law contract:

                           —

                           recategorise his contractual relationship as an employment contract of an indeterminate duration;

                           —

                           hold that there has been an infringement by the defendants of their contractual obligations and, in particular, of giving notice of termination of a contract of an indeterminate duration;
                           In consequence, in compensation for the loss suffered by the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts causing the applicant prolonged uncertainty and the infringement of the obligation to give notice of termination of the contract:

                                       —

                                       order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation in lieu of notice of EUR 176 601,55 calculated on the basis of his seniority in post in missions created by the European Union;

                                       —

                                       in the alternative, order the defendants to pay the applicant compensation in lieu of notice of EUR 45 985,15 calculated taking account of the length of his service for the fourth defendant;

                           —

                           hold that the dismissal of the applicant is abusive and, in consequence, order the defendants to pay him compensation assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 50 000;

                           —

                           hold that the defendants did not have the legal end of employment documents prepared and

                                       —

                                       order them to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 per day of non-payment with effect from the bringing of the present action;

                                       —

                                       order them to send the applicant the end of employment documents;

                           —

                           order the defendants to pay interest on the abovementioned sums, calculated at the Belgian legal rate.

               – 2.

               With regard to the abuse of power and actual discrimination:

                           —

                           declare that the first three defendants treated the applicant in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, during his employment on the missions which they instituted, as regards his remuneration, pension rights and related benefits and as regards a guarantee of future employment;

                           —

                           hold that the applicant ought to have been recruited as a member of the temporary staff of one of the first three defendants;

                           —

                           order the first three defendants to compensate him for the loss of remuneration, pension, allowances and benefits caused by the abovementioned breaches of EU law;
                           order them to pay him interest on those sums, calculated at the Belgian legal rate;

                           —

                           prescribe a period within which the parties are to determine that compensation, having regard to the grade and step in which the applicant ought to have been employed, the average progression of the remuneration, the progress of his career, the allowances which he thus ought to have received under that temporary contract; and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicant.

         In the alternative:

               —

               find that the defendants failed to fulfil their obligations;

               —

               order them to compensate the applicant for the harm resulting from that failure, which is estimated ex aequo et bono at EUR 150 000.

         In any event:
   Order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an abuse of rights committed by the defendants in the successive use of fixed-term contracts and infringement by those defendants of the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the protection of workers in the context of a mass redundancy.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the applicant’s right to be heard.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging legal uncertainty caused to the applicant by the defendants and infringement by those defendants of the right to sound administration.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the principle that staff representatives should be consulted.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendants of the right to freedom of movement for workers.


title: Case T-475/11 P: Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Reimbursement of recoverable expenses — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/22

         Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-475/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Reimbursement of recoverable expenses - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 336/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2011 in Case F-67/10 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC I-A-0000 and II-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-308/99 P: Appeal brought on 13 August 1999 by the French Republic against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96 between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission of the European Communities supported by the French Republic

text:
16.10.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 299/15
Appeal brought on 13 August 1999 by the French                            (As regards the order as to costs:)
Republic against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the                        — Infringement of Article 87(4), alternatively Article 87(6) of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                        the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Case T-17/96 between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1)
and the Commission of the European Communities sup-                       (1) Case C-107/95 P Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter v Com-
                ported by the French Republic                                 mission (1997) ECR I-947.
                        (Case C-308/99 P)
                          (1999/C 299/16)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1999 by                Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of                  1999 in the case of 1. J.C.J. Wouters 2. Council of the Bars
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-17/96                and Law Societies of the European Community 3. J.W.
between Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) and the Commission                Savelbergh 4. Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV
of the European Communities supported by the French                       and Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advo-
Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the                                                  caten
European Communities on 13 August 1999 by the French
Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Frédérik                                      (Case C-309/99)
Million, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                         (1999/C 299/17)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities by a judgment of the Netherlands
                                                                          Raad van State (Council of State) of 10 August 1999, which
— set aside point 2 (in so far as it is conceded that the action          was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a
    under Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) is              preliminary ruling in the case of 1. J.C.J. Wouters, 2. Council
    admissible) and point 6 of the operative part of the                  of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community 3.
    judgment under appeal;                                                J.W. Savelbergh 4. Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV
                                                                          against the Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van
— grant the form of order sought by the Commission at first               Advocaten (the Netherlands Bar Council) on the following
    instance.                                                             questions:
                                                                          1.(a) Is the term ‘association of undertakings’ in Article 85(1)
                                                                                [now Article 81(1)] of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 meaning that there is such an association only if and in
                                                                                so far as it acts in the undertakings’ interest, so that in
(As regards the admissibility of the action under Article 90:)                  applying that provision a distinction must be made
                                                                                between activities of the association carried out in the
— The Court of First Instance erred in law and in its legal                     public interest and other activities, or is the mere fact
    characterisation of the facts: The admissibility of an action               that an association can also act in the undertakings’
    for failure to act is subject to the existence of a duty to act.            interest sufficient for it to be regarded as an association
    Under the Treaty, the Commission is under no obligation                     of undertakings within the meaning of the provision in
    to act pursuant to Article 90(3). That provision confers                    respect of all its actions? Is the fact that the universally
    upon it a discretion similar to that which it enjoys in the                 binding rules adopted by the relevant institution are
    application of Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article                    adopted under a statutory power and in its capacity as a
    226 EC).                                                                    special legislature relevant as regards the application of
                                                                                Community competition law?
    As a subsidiary plea, the French Government expresses the
    view that the Court of First Instance could not have                  1.(b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is that there is an
    accepted the characterisation of an ‘exceptional situation’                 association of undertakings only if and in so far as it acts
    within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice                  in the undertakings’ interest, is the question of when
    without misconstruing the scope of that concept, which is                   the public interest is being pursued also governed by
    necessarily very restrictive. Exceptional situations, within                Community law?
    the meaning of the judgment in Bundesverband der
    Bilanzbuchhalter (1) must, the French Government submits,             1.(c) If the answer to Question 1(b) is that Community law is
    be limited to instances where State measures merely ‘ratify’                relevant, can the adoption under a statutory power by
    (encourage or support) anti-competitive conduct engaged                     an institution such as the [Netherlands] Bar Association
    in on their own initiative by undertakings caught by Article                of universally binding rules, designed to safeguard the
    90, in order to prevent public intervention of that kind                    independence and loyalty to the client of lawyers provid-
    from shielding anti-competitive conduct which is to be                      ing legal assistance, on the formation of co-operative
    prohibited as a matter of course in accordance with                         associations between lawyers and members of other
    Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and                    professions be regarded for the purposes of Community
    82 EC).                                                                     law as pursuing the public interest?


title: Case C-157/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land
   (Case C-157/05)
   (2005/C 143/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) of 28 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 7 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Winfried L. Holböck and Finanzamt Salzburg-Land on the following question:
   Do the provisions relating to the free movement of capital (Article 56 et seq. EC) preclude national legislation in force on 31 December 1993 (and remaining in force after Austria's accession to the EU on 1 January 1995), according to which dividends from inland shares are taxed at a rate of half the average tax rate applicable to the aggregate income, whereas dividends from a public limited company established in a third country (in the main proceedings, Switzerland), in which the taxable person holds two-thirds of the shares, are invariably taxed at the standard rate of income tax?


title: Case T-652/11: Action brought on 23 December 2011 — Sabbagh v Council

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/12

         Action brought on 23 December 2011 — Sabbagh v Council
   (Case T-652/11)
   2012/C 58/22
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bassam Sabbagh (Damas, Syria) (represented by: M.-A. Bastin and J.-M. Salva, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible in its entirety;

               —

               Declare it well founded in all its pleas;

               —

               Hold that the contested measures can be annulled in part since that part of the measures to be annulled can be separated from the measure as a whole;

               —

               Consequently,

                           —

                           annul in part Decision 2011/782 of 1 December 2011, which repeals Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria by removing the name of Mr Bassam Sabbagh from the list of persons subject to sanctions;

                           —

                           failing that, annul Decision 2011/782 of 1 December 2011, which repeals Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2011 of 14 November 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria by removing Mr Bassam Sabbagh from the list of persons subject to sanctions;

               —

               Failing that, declare those decisions and regulation inapplicable to Mr Bassam Sabbagh and order the removal of his name and details from the list of persons subject to European Union sanctions;

               —

               Order the Council to pay 500 000 dollars in damages provisionally as compensation for the non-pecuniary and material harm suffered owing to the inclusion of Mr Bassam Sabbagh in the list of persons subject to sanctions;

               —

               Order the Council to pay all the costs and in particular all charges, fees and disbursements incurred by the applicant for his defence at the present instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, since the applicant disputes the grounds advanced against him in the contested measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since the contested measures were not notified to the applicant and nor was he sent any evidence or serious indications to justify his inclusion in the list of persons subject to sanctions.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, in that the defendant merely used an affirmative wording in the contested measures, without stating reasons, when adopting the restrictive measures against the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective judicial review, since the infringement of the duty to state reasons prevents the European Court from carrying out its review of the lawfulness of the contested measures.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property, since the sanctions adopted disproportionately affect the applicant’s right freely to dispose of his assets.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging harm resulting from the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons subject to sanctions, since the publication of the contested measures in the press has had an impact on the legitimate confidence which the applicant’s clients had in him.


title: Case T-104/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for registration of the Community word mark VORTEX — Earlier Community word mark VORTEX — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right of priority — Article 29 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial surrender — Article 50 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Infringement of the right to be heard — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Verus v OHIM — Performance Industries Manufacturing (VORTEX)
   (Case T-104/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for registration of the Community word mark VORTEX - Earlier Community word mark VORTEX - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of priority - Article 29 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial surrender - Article 50 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Infringement of the right to be heard - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 189/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented initially by S. Vykydal, then by F. Henkel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Performance Industries Manufacturing, Inc. (Odessa, Florida, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2011 (Case R 512/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Verus Eood and Performance Industries Manufacturing Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Verus Eood to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.