title: Case F-103/14: Action brought on 6 October 2014  — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/52

         Action brought on 6 October 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-103/14)
   (2015/C 007/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Heinrich Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the defendant’s decision to apply to the competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 the clause contained in the applicant’s contract of employment, which provides for the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that she is not included in the reserve list of the next open competition organised by EPSO for her function group with the specialisation ‘industrial property’, and claim for compensation in respect of the non-material damage caused to her.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul OHIM’s decision, of which the applicant was informed by OHIM’s letter of 28 November 2003, to apply to competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13, the notices for which were published on 31 October 2013, the clause contained in Article 5 of the applicant’s contract of employment, which provides for the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment in the event that she is not included in the reserve list of the next open competition organised by EPSO for her function group with the specialisation ‘industrial property’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation of an appropriate amount, to be left to the discretion of the Court, in respect of the non-material damage caused to her by the decision of OHIM referred to in the first head of claim, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case T-346/09: Action brought on 1 September 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (BAÑOFTAL)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/35

         Action brought on 1 September 2009 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (BAÑOFTAL)
   (Case T-346/09)
   2009/C 256/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alcon, Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2009 in case R 795/2008-1;

               —

               Order the defendant, in any event the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs; and

               —

               In the auxiliary, defer the matter to OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “BAÑOFTAL”, for goods in class 5

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

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the mark “PAN-OPHTAL” registered for goods in class 5; German trade mark registration of the mark “KAN-OPHTAL” registered for goods class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarities between the trade marks concerned, wrongly held that the Community trade mark concerned would not fall under the series of “Ophtal” trade marks of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and wrongly denied an enhanced distinctiveness of the trade marks cited in the opposition proceedings based on use, thereby wrongly decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal omitted to make any statements on this ground of opposition; infringement of Articles 75 and 76(1) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly omitted to provide reasons, in any event comprehensive reasons, allowing an understanding of the decision.


title: Case C-39/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/30

         Action brought on 24 January 2006 by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-39/06)
   (2006/C 60/58)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not taking all the measures necessary to recover the aid granted, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Commission Decision in the State aid procedure C-62/00 (ex NN 142/99) of 30 October 2002, in the form of the corrected decision of 13 May 2003 (2003/643/EC) (1) on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the European Commission, the Federal Government failed to sufficiently implement the Commission's decision in the State aid procedure C-62/00 (ex NN 142/99) of 30 October 2002 in the form of the corrected decision of 13 May 2003 (2003/643/EC).
   By means of the decision, a number of items of State aid granted by Germany to Kahla Porzellan GmbH in the years from 1991 to 1993 and to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH in the years from 1993 to 1999 were declared to be incompatible with the common market. At the same time the decision ordered that they be recovered, including interest.
   The fact that Decision 2003/643/EC is being contested in Case T-20/03 is irrelevant as regards the obligation to execute the decision, as the bringing of the action has no suspensory effect.
   As the Federal Republic has not yet fully implemented Decision 2003/643/EC, despite repeated written demands on the part of the Commission, the Commission has brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12.


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/18

         Removal from the register of Case C-92/04 (1)

   (2005/C 19/40)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 30 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-92/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case F-87/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Alsteens v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Renewal of contract — Annulment in part — Review)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — Alsteens v Commission
   (Case F-87/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Renewal of contract - Annulment in part - Review)
   2013/C 252/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, A. Coolen and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit the extension period of the applicant’s contract.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Alsteens shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 19.


title: Case C-415/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 8 August 2011 — Mohamed Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 8 August 2011 — Mohamed Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa)
   (Case C-415/11)
   2011/C 331/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed Aziz

      Defendant: Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona i Manresa (Catalunyacaixa)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Whether the system of levying execution, in reliance on judicial documents, on mortgaged or pledged property provided for in Article 695 et seq of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure), with its limitations regarding the grounds of objection available under Spanish procedural law, may be nothing more than a clear limitation of consumer protection since it involves, both formally and substantively, a clear impediment to the consumer’s exercise of rights of action or judicial remedies of such a kind as to guarantee the effective protection of his rights.

               2.

               This reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union is made so that the concept of disproportion can be expanded upon with regard to:

                           (a)

                           the use of acceleration clauses in contracts planned to last for a considerable time — in this case 33 years — for events of default occurring within a very limited specific period;

                           (b)

                           the setting of default interest rates — in this case exceeding 18 % — which are not consistent with the criteria for determining default interest in other consumer contracts (consumer credit), which, in other types of consumer contracts, might be regarded as unfair, and which, nevertheless, in contracts relating to immovable property, are not subject to any clear legal limit, even where they are applied not only to the instalments that have already fallen due but also to the totality of those that have become due as a result of acceleration;

                           (c)

                           the unilateral establishment by the lender of mechanisms for the calculation and determination of variable interest — both ordinary and default interest — which are linked to the possibility of mortgage enforcement and do not allow a debtor who is subject to enforcement to object to the quantification of the debt in the enforcement proceedings themselves but require him to resort to declaratory proceedings in which a final decision will not be given before enforcement has been completed or, at least, the debtor will have lost the property mortgaged or charged by way of guarantee — a matter of great importance when the loan is sought for the purchase of a dwelling and enforcement gives rise to eviction from the property.


title: Case T-445/04: Action brought on 10 November 2004 by Energy Technologies ET S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/26

         Action brought on 10 November 2004 by Energy Technologies ET S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-445/04)
   (2005/C 31/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 November 2004 by Energy Technologies ET S.A., established in Fribourg (Switzerland), represented by A. Boman, lawyer.
   Aparellaje Elèctrico S.L., established in Hospitalet de Llobregat (Spain), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7 July 2004 (Case R 0366/2002-4);

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the applicant's costs relating to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Energy Technologies ET S.A.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Word mark ‘UNEX’ for goods in classes 7 and 11 (Heat exchangers being part of machines; Heat exchangers as well as parts and fitting therefor) - application No 974881

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Aparellaje Eléctrico S.L.

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Spanish word mark ‘UNEX’ for goods in the old Spanish class 6, 17 and 61 (pipes, screws, cabling and laying of cables and pipes in electronic and electrical engineering systems;...)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the application for Community trade mark

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-561/11: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2012 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/20

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2012 — Nycomed v OHIM — Bayer Consumer Care (ALEVIAN DUO)
   (Case T-561/11) (1)

   2012/C 184/42
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case C-517/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d'autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium)) — in proceedings concerning RTL Belgium SA, formerly TViSA (Directive 89/552/EEC — Television broadcasting services — Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority — Court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège d'autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium)) — in proceedings concerning RTL Belgium SA, formerly TViSA
   (Case C-517/09) (1)

   (Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting services - Licensing and Control Authority of the Broadcasting Authority - Court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2011/C 63/17
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Collège d'autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (Belgium)

      Party to the main proceedings

   RTL Belgium SA, formerly TViSA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23) — Freedom to provide services — Television broadcasting services — Concept of ‘supplier’ of audiovisual services and of ‘effective control both over the selection of the programmes and over their organisation’ — Concept of national court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Collège d’autorisation et de contrôle du Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel in its decision of 3 December 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-353/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2006 — in the Registry Office case Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul, other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Flensburg (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2006 — in the Registry Office case Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul, other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll
   (Case C-353/06)
   (2006/C 281/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Flensburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stefan Grunkin and Dorothee Regina Paul

      Other parties to the proceedings: Leonhard Matthias Grunkin-Paul and Standesamt Niebüll
   Question referred
   In light of the prohibition on discrimination set out in Article 12 of the EC Treaty and having regard to the right to the freedom of movement for every citizen of the Union laid down by Article 18 of the EC Treaty, is the provision on the conflict of laws contained in Article 10 of the EGBGB valid, in so far as it provides that the right to bear a name is governed by nationality alone?


title: Case C-440/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de Cassation (1st Chamber) by decision of that court of 7 October 2004 in the case of the Belgian State against Recolta Recycling s.p.r.l.

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de Cassation (1st Chamber) by decision of that court of 7 October 2004 in the case of the Belgian State against Recolta Recycling s.p.r.l.
   (Case C-440/04)
   (2005/C 6/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Belgian Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) (1st Chamber) of 7 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Belgian State against Recolta Recycling s.p.r.l. on the following questions:

               1.

               Where the recipient of a supply of goods is a taxable person who has entered into a contract in good faith without knowledge of a fraud committed by the seller, does the principle of fiscal neutrality in respect of value added tax mean that the fact that the contract of sale is void, by reason of a rule of domestic civil law which renders the contract incurably void as contrary to public policy on the ground of illegal basis of the contract attributable to the seller, cannot cause that taxable person to lose his right to deduct that tax?

               2.

               Is the answer different where the contract is incurably void for fraudulent evasion of VAT itself?


title: Case C-451/15 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-395/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/14

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-395/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO
   (Case C-451/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (represented by: J. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 14 April 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case T-225/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Claro v OHIM — Telefónica (Claro) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community three-dimensional mark Claro — Earlier Community word mark CLARO — Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal — Articles 59 and 62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60 and 64 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Claro v OHIM — Telefónica (Claro)
   (Case T-225/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community three-dimensional mark Claro - Earlier Community word mark CLARO - Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Articles 59 and 62 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60 and 64 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   2010/C 148/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Claro, SA (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Telefónica SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009 (Case R 1079/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Telefónica, SA and BCP S/A

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Claro, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-656/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/14

         Action brought on 29 December 2011 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council
   (Case T-656/11)
   2012/C 58/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Morison Menon Chartered Accountants (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Dubai Office (Dubai); and Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Sharjah Office (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (1) and Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2) insofar as they concern the applicants;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicants, as well as its own.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           an infringement of the duty to state reasons on the part of the Council, as well as the applicants’ rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and to an effective judicial remedy;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Council;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           an infringement of the right to property.

      (1)  OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11

      (2)  OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71


title: Case T-643/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/31

         Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council
   (Case T-643/11)
   2012/C 49/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China) and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 (1), as far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear its own costs and those of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence in so far as the defendant explicitly ignored parts of the applicants’ submissions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 11(2), 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2) in so far as the defendant based its injury and causation findings on several errors in fact. The defendant based its findings on facts contrary to those set out in the contested regulation:

                           —

                           Firstly, with regard to the relative development of the injury indicators production and sales volume against Union consumption;

                           —

                           Secondly, with regard to the development of the Union industry’s profitability; and

                           —

                           Thirdly, with regard to the development of the Union industry’s sales prices.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 11(2), 3(2), (6) and (7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 or of Article 296(2) TFEU in so far as the defendant based its injury and causation findings on manifest errors of assessment or failed to provide sufficient reasons. The defendant committed manifest errors of assessment:

                           —

                           Firstly, when assessing injury indicators in the abstract instead of in relation to the development of demand; and

                           —

                           Secondly, when implicitly relying on the market shares as the essential indicator of a causal link despite the fact that market shares show no clear trend and developed contrary to the other injury factors the Council referred to as important.

                     In any event, the defendant committed a procedural error as the contested regulation does not contain explanations on the obvious impact of the contraction in demand on the injury allegedly suffered by the Union industry.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 of 10 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2011 L 268, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case C-17/08 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2008 by MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2007 in Case T-459/05 MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/18

         Appeal brought on 17 January 2008 by MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 8 November 2007 in Case T-459/05 MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-17/08 P)
   (2008/C 79/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (represented by: W. Göpfert, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as the Court of First Instance dismissed the heads of claim submitted before it,

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 October 2005 in the appeal proceedings R 1059/2004-2, and

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is based on errors in law in the interpretation in the judgment under appeal of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
   That erroneous interpretation resulted in an erroneous outcome — rejection of the application for registration of the Community word mark ‘manufacturing score card’. In particular, not only did the Court of First Instance make a wrong assessment of the content; it also seriously misinterpreted the requirements of distinctive character and the need to keep terms free as formulated by the European Court of Justice in relation to applications for a Community trade mark and the relevant classes of persons.
   It was not permissible for the Court of First Instance to divide the verbal composition submitted in the application into its constituent parts and to find, on that basis, that the mark was not eligible for protection. Dividing it up in this way does not correspond to how the ‘normal’ class of persons assesses and interprets the mark when it sees it as a whole. Moreover, the Court of First Instance was wrong to base its finding that the mark lacked distinctive character and that there was a need to keep the term free on the observation that the verbal composition consisted of parts which, in the course of trade, were normally used to explain the purpose and function of the services covered. The relevant trade circles would not, however, recognise any immediately obvious meaning in the application for a Community trade mark ‘manufacturing score card’, consisting of a combination of three English words. Consequently, the mark applied for has the minimum distinctive character required by Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and also does not designate characteristics of goods or services in accordance with Article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.


title: Case C-497/07 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2007 by Philip Morris Products SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-140/06 Philip Morris Products v OHIM

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/27

         Appeal brought on 16 November 2007 by Philip Morris Products SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-140/06 Philip Morris Products v OHIM

   (Case C-497/07 P)
   (2008/C 22/52)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Philip Morris Products SA (represented by: T. van Innis and C. S. Moreau, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Order the Office to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance infringed Articles 4 and 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1). In this respect, it complains, first, that the Court of First Instance based its assessment on a bias against the category of marks in which the mark applied for falls. In finding that consumers are not in the habit of making assumptions about the origin of goods on the basis of their shape or of the shape of their packaging, the Court of First Instance made a factual finding which has no scientific foundation whatsoever and misconstrues the human perception of signs in general, and of shapes in particular.
   Second, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance carried out an incorrect legal analysis of the relevant public's perception of the mark. That error arises, on the one hand, from the fact that the Court envisaged use of the mark only through its incorporation into a packet of cigarettes, although the shape of packaging for a given product can be perceived by the public in a multitude of other forms, such as graphic or three-dimensional representations of the mark in advertising material. The error of assessment arises, on the other hand, from the fact that the Court of First Instance reduced the concept of a mark to its part which is perceptible by a prospective purchaser at the moment immediately prior to his purchase, whilst the public concerned by a mark is composed of all those who may be faced with it in the course of normal use of the mark, which occurs both during the advertising of the product before it has been purchased and during use or consumption of the product after it has been purchased.
   The appellant claims, thirdly and lastly, that the grounds of the judgment under appeal are contradictory.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Case F-56/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Buschak v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Unemployment allowance — Pension contributions — Application out of time)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Buschak v Commission
   (Case F-56/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Unemployment allowance - Pension contributions - Application out of time)
   2013/C 252/81
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Willy Buschak (Dresde, Germany) (represented by: T. Menssen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to pay contributions in respect of the applicant to a national pension scheme or to the European Union pension scheme after the end of his contract as a temporary agent during the period in which he was unemployed, and application for him to be included in the European Union pension scheme or for his pension rights to be transferred to the national scheme.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Buschak to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 34.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 February 2000 in Case C-340/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Ömer Nazli, Caglar Nazli, Melike Nazli v Stadt Nürnberg (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Registration as duly belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish worker detained pending trial and subsequently sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment — Expulsion on general preventive grounds)

text:
8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 102/7
2. The fact that the relevant national provisions prohibit all                  EC), resulting from the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne v
    discrimination against workers by reason of the fact that they              Sabena [1976] ECR 455, does not preclude national provisions
    work part time, and not by reason of their sex, does not affect the         which lay down a principle of equal treatment by virtue of which,
    answer to be given to the first question.                                   in circumstances like those of the main proceedings, all part-time
                                                                                workers are entitled to retroactive membership of an occupational
                                                                                pension scheme and to receive a pension under that scheme.
(1) OJ C 269 of 14.9.1996.
                                                                           2. Article 119 of the Treaty does not preclude provisions of a
                                                                                Member State which lay down a principle of equal treatment by
                                                                                virtue of which, in circumstances like those of the main
                                                                                proceedings, all part-time workers are entitled to retroactive
                                                                                membership of a private occupational pension scheme and to
                                                                                receive a pension under that scheme, notwithstanding the risk of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          distortions of competition between economic operators of the
                                                                                various Member States to the detriment of employers established
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                       in the first Member State.
                        of 10 February 2000                                3. National courts are required to interpret their national law as far
                                                                                as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the relevant
in Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 (references for                           Community provisions, in particular Article 119 of the Treaty,
preliminary rulings from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-                       in order to ensure application of the principle of equal pay for
sachsen): Deutsche Post AG v Elisabeth Sievers                                  men and women.
         (C-270/97), Brunhilde Schrage (C-271/97) (1)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
(Equal pay for men and women — Article 119 of the EC
Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) — Protocol
concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty — Occupational
social security schemes — Exclusion of part-time workers
affiliated to a supplementary occupational retirement pen-
sion scheme — Retroactive membership — Entitlement to a
pension — Relationship between national law and Com-
munity law — Interpretation consonant with Community                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                 law)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 102/10)
                                                                                of 10 February 2000
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           in Case C-340/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Ömer
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Nazli, Caglar Nazli, Melike Nazli v Stadt Nürnberg (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97: references to the                   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of move-
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                  ment for workers — Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision
EC) from the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen (Germany)                  No 1/80 of the Association Council — Registration as duly
for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before                  belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish
that court between Deutsche Post AG and Elisabeth Sievers                  worker detained pending trial and subsequently sentenced to
(C-270/97), Brunhilde Schrage (C-271/97) — on the interpret-               a suspended term of imprisonment — Expulsion on general
ation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of                                        preventive grounds)
the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143
EC) and of the Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty                                           (2000/C 102/11)
establishing the European Community, annexed to the EC
Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schint-
gen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for                                   (Language of the case: German)
the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragne-
malm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:                                                        in the European Court Reports)
1. The limitation in time of the possibility of relying on the direct
    effect of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of         In Case C-340/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bayerisches
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.4.2000
Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach (Bavarian Administrative Court,                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Ansbach), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Ömer Nazli, Caglar Nazli,
Melike Nazli and Stadt Nürnberg — on the interpretation of                                           (Second Chamber)
Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September
1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the
Association Council established by the Association Agreement                                        of 17 February 2000
between the European Economic Community and Turkey
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting as                    in Case C-156/97: Commission of the European Communi-
President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,                       ties v Van Balkom Non-Ferro Scheiding BV (1)
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:                                    (Arbitration clause — Rescission of a contract — Right to
                                                                                reimbursement of advance payments)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/12)
1. A Turkish national who has been in legal employment in a
    Member State for an uninterrupted period of more than four
    years but is subsequently detained pending trial for more than a                            (Language of the case: German)
    year in connection with an offence for which he is ultimately
    sentenced to a term of imprisonment suspended in full has not
    ceased, because he was not in employment while detained pending
    trial, to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    host Member State if he finds a job again within a reasonable                               in the European Court Reports)
    period after his release, and may claim there an extension of his
    residence permit for the purposes of continuing to exercise his
    right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under         In Case C-156/97: Commission of the European Communities
    the third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of                 (Agents: H. van Lier and G. zur Hausen, assisted by B.
    19 September 1980 on the development of the Association,                Wägenbaur) v Van Balkom Non-Ferro Scheiding BV, estab-
    adopted by the Association Council established by the Association       lished in Oss, Netherlands, represented by D. Baas, Rechtsan-
    Agreement between the European Economic Community and                   walt, Mannheim, Postfach 10 27 50, D-68027 Mannheim —
    Turkey.                                                                 application for recovery of an advance payment which the
                                                                            Commission made to the defendant in respect of a demon-
                                                                            stration project in the field of the production of energy from
                                                                            crushed motor vehicle scrap metal — the Court (Second
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamb-
                                                                            er, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo,
2. Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 is to be interpreted as
                                                                            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, and then
    precluding the expulsion of a Turkish national who enjoys a right
                                                                            H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
    granted directly by that decision when it is ordered, following a
                                                                            a judgment on 17 February 2000, in which it:
    criminal conviction, as a deterrent to other aliens without the
    personal conduct of the person concerned giving reason to
    consider that he will commit other serious offences prejudicial to      1. Orders Van Balkom Non—Ferro Scheiding BV to pay to the
    the requirements of public policy in the host Member State.                 Commission of the European Communities the sum of EUR
                                                                                251 649, plus interest on that sum as from 1 May 1995 at the
                                                                                percentage rates, published on the first working day of each
                                                                                month, which the European Monetary Cooperation Fund charges
                                                                                in respect of its euro transactions;
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                 2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                                                                            3. Orders Van Balkom Non-Ferro Scheiding BV to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.


title: Case T-340/06: Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Stradivarius España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/80

         Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Stradivarius España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715)
   (Case T-340/06)
   (2006/C 326/163)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Stradivarius España (Arteixo, La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cristina Ricci
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 in Case R 1024/2005-1 and, allowing the appeal lodged against Decision No 2205/2005 of the Opposition Division, reject Community trade mark application No 2.269.256 (figurative mark Stradivari 1715) and order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in the present action;

               —

               if necessary, order the intervener to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Cristina Ricci.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Stradivari 1715’ (application for registration No 2.269.256) for products in classes 14, 16 and 18.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘Stradivarius’, for products in classes 14 and 16 (No 1.246.164) and 18 (No 506.469).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark.


title: Case T-443/13: Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/39

         Action brought on 20 August 2013 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-443/13)
   2013/C 325/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p.30.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-235/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 Barcelona: QDQ Media SA v Alejandro Omedas Lecha (Directive 2000/35/EC — Definition of recovery costs — Expenses of abogado or procurador in judicial proceedings where use of those legal practitioners is not required — Impossible to include in the costs on the basis of national law — Impossible to rely on the directive against an individual)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-235/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 Barcelona: QDQ Media SA v Alejandro Omedas Lecha (1)

   (Directive 2000/35/EC - Definition of recovery costs - Expenses of abogado or procurador in judicial proceedings where use of those legal practitioners is not required - Impossible to include in the costs on the basis of national law - Impossible to rely on the directive against an individual)
   (2005/C 115/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-235/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de Barcelona (Spain), made by decision of 5 May 2003, received at the Court on 2 June 2003, in the proceedings between QDQ Media SA and Alejandro Omedas Lecha — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Where it is not possible on the basis of national law to include, in the calculation of the costs which an individual who owes a business debt might be ordered to pay, the expenses arising from representation by an abogado or procurador of the creditor in judicial proceedings for the recovery of that debt, Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions cannot of itself serve as the basis for the inclusion of such expenses.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.03.


title: Case T-274/08: Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/57

         Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-274/08)
   (2008/C 223/100)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C (2008) 1711 of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision that is the subject of these proceedings is challenged in so far as it charges interest on sums to be borne by the Italian State budget pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05 and, in particular, in so far as it accounts for interest, with effect from the date of payment of sums that are not due, on sums which have not been recovered within eight years of the date of the primary administrative or judicial procedure and where judicial proceedings are pending before the national courts or tribunals, 50 % of which is to be borne by the Member State and 50 % by the Community budget.
   In support of its action, the applicant Government claims infringement of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05. That measure cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where recovery is being disputed in legal proceedings, interest must be charged, both because the literal wording of paragraph 5 makes no such provision (unlike paragraph 1 of that provision) and because the date from which interest runs can be established only once a judicial finding has been made.


title: Case C-219/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment Tribunals, Birmingham (United Kingdom) made on 6 May 2014 — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment Tribunals, Birmingham (United Kingdom) made on 6 May 2014 — Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd
   (Case C-219/14)
   2014/C 223/11
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Employment Tribunals, Birmingham

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kathleen Greenfield

      Defendant: The Care Bureau Ltd

      Questions referred

               i.

               Is the ‘pro rata temporis principle’, as set out in clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement, to be interpreted as requiring a provision of national law, (such as Regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations), to have the effect that, in circumstances where there is an increase in the working hours of an employee, the amount of leave already accumulated must be adjusted proportionally to the new working hours, with the result that the worker who increases his/her working hours has his/her entitlement to accrued leave recalculated in accordance with the increased hours?

               ii.

               Is either clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement or Article 7 of the Working Time Directive (1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law (such as Regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations), from having the effect that in circumstances where there is an increase in the working hours of an employee, the amount of leave already accumulated is to be adjusted proportionally to the new working hours, with the result that the worker who increases his/her working hours has his/her entitlement to accrued leave recalculated in accordance with the revised hours?

               iii.

               If the answer to question (i) and/or (ii) is yes, does the recalculation apply only to that portion of the holiday year during which the employee worked the increased hours or to some other period?

               iv.

               When calculating the period of leave taken by a worker, is either clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement or Article 7 of the Working Time Directive to be interpreted as requiring a provision of national law (such as Regulations 13, 13A and 14 of the Working Time Regulations) to have the effect of adopting a different approach as between calculating an employee's allowance in lieu of paid annual leave entitlement upon termination and when calculating an employee's remaining annual leave entitlement when they remain employed?

               v.

               If the answer to question (iv) is yes, what is the difference in approach required to be adopted?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time OJ L 299, p. 9


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht, Vienna, by order of that Court of 1 July 1996 in the competition case of Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG against 1. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG; 2. Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG; 3. Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Case C-7/97)

text:
8 . 3 . 97             EN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 74/ 15
3 . If so, in which cases and on what grounds must                         with the publisher of a competing product dependent
      account be taken of the companies belonging to the                   upon the latter instructing him not only with home
      dominant legal person of a group of companies ?                      deliveries but also with other services ( e.g. marketing
                                                                           through sales points, printing ) within the context of an
(') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p . 4 .                                   overall package ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Oberlandesgericht, Vienna, by order of that Court of                   Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that
1 July 1996 in the competition case of Oscar Bronner                   tribunal of 9 January 1997 in the proceedings brought by
GmbH & Co. KG against 1 . Mediaprint Zeitungs- und                                               Raija-Liisa Jokela
Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG; 2 . Mediaprint Zei                                            ( Case C-9/97 )
tungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG; 3 . Mediaprint
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/31 )
             Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
                           ( Case C-7/97 )
                             ( 97/C 74/30 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                       Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta ( Rural Industries
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Appeals Board ) of 9 January 1997, which was received at
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                 the Court Registry on 16 January 1997, for a preliminary
(Higher Regional Court — acting as a competition court),               ruling in the proceedings brought by Raija-Liisa Jokela on
Vienna, of 1 July 1996, received at the Court Registry on              the following questions:
15 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
competition case between the applicant, Oscar Brunner                  1 . Is it compatible with the aims of Articles 17 and 18 of
GmbH & Co . KG, and the defendants, 1 . Mediaprint                         Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2328/91 on improving
Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG;                           the efficiency of agricultural structures 0 ) and Article 1
2 . Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co .                    of Council Directive 75/268/EEC on mountain and hill
KG; 3 . Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,                      farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas ( 2 )
on the following questions:                                                for a compensatory allowance for natural handicaps to
                                                                           be granted to a farmer, if he does not live on a farm
1 . Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted in such               owned or controlled by him in Finland in a less
      a way that there is an abuse of a dominant position, in              favoured area within the meaning of the said
      the sense of an abusive barring of access to the                     Directive, but lives for most of the year outside the
                                                                           said area ?
      market, where an undertaking which carries on the
      publication, production and marketing of daily
      newspapers, and with its products occupies a                         If the answer to the above question is affirmative, even
      predominant position on the Austrian market for daily                partly or conditionally:
      newspapers ( 46,8 % of total circulation, 42 % of
      advertising revenue and 71 % range of influence,                      ( a ) is it permissible, having regard to the said
      measured by the number of all daily newspapers ), and                       provisions and the principles of Article 5 , the
      operates the only intra-regional home-delivery                              second subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ), and indent
      distribution service for subscribers, refuses to make a                     ( a ) of the second paragraph of Article 42 of the
      binding offer to another undertaking engaged in the                         Treaty of Rome, and in particular to the principle
      publication, production and marketing of a daily                            of equal treatment of farmers and the associated
      newspaper in Austria to include that daily newspaper                        prohibition of discrimination set out there, to
      in its home-delivery scheme, in the light also of the                       require, in order to obtain the compensation for
      circumstance that it is not possible, on account of the                     natural handicaps referred to in paragraph 6 of the
      small circulation and the consequently small number                         decision of the national Council of State ( 861 /
      of subscribers, for the undertaking seeking inclusion in                    1995 ) in the case of a farmer living outside the
      the home-delivery scheme to build up its own home                          farm and more than 12 kilometres distant by road
      delivery scheme for a reasonable outlay and operate it                      from the operational centre of the farm, that the
      profitably, either alone or in cooperation with the                         farmer both receives at least half his total income
      other undertakings offering daily newspapers on the                         from agriculture, horticulture and forestry and
      market ?                                                                    other activities carried on on the farm and also
                                                                                carries on farming on the farm himself; and
2 . Does it amount to an abuse within the meaning of
      Article 86 of the EC Treaty, where, under the                         ( b ) is it consistent in particular with the principle of
      circumstances described in question 1 above, the                            legal certainty to be observed in the Community
      operator of the home-delivery scheme for daily                              legal order always also to require that a special
      newspapers makes the entry into business relations                          reason should exist ?


title: Case T-418/05: Action brought on  9 November 2005  — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/21

         Action brought on 9 November 2005 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission
   (Case T-418/05)
   (2006/C 22/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Investire Partecipazioni S.p.A. (Italy) (represented by: Gian Michele Roberti and Alessandra Franchi)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 August 2005, file No 08405, and the supplementary decision of 23 August 2005, file No 08720;

               —

               in the alternative, declare unlawful under Article 241 EC and inapplicable paragraph B(12) and paragraph C(2) of datasheet No 19 annexed to the Commission decision of 23 April 1997 (97/322/EC);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present application concerns assistance from a venture-capital fund for an undertaking (Sys S.p.A.) to enable the latter to make an investment in an area which is eligible under objective 2. By its application, the applicant Investire Partecipazioni S.p.A. asks the Court of First Instance to annul the Commission decision of 11 August 2005, file No 08405, concerning the Commission's final position on financial corrections for the purposes of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) in relation to Measure 1.5 of the Piedmont SPD, objective 2 (1997 — 1999) — venture-capital fund for an investment in the company Sys S.p.A. — and of the supplementary decision of 23 August 2005, file No 08720. It follows from those two decisions that the ineligible Community contribution was EUR 542 277.6, corresponding to the Community participation in the venture-capital fund contribution to the undertaking Sys S.p.A.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               —

               In the first place, Investire Partecipazioni S.p.A. considers that, by adopting the contested decisions, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in fact and in law. The Commission erroneously assessed the facts concerning the investment in the company Sys S.p.A. and proceeded to misapply the relevant legislation, in particular the provisions of datasheet number 19 concerning eligible expenditure under the Structural Funds, ‘Financial engineering: venture-capital funds’, annexed to the Commission decision of 23 April 1997, and Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88. The applicant emphasises in that connection that the company Sys S.p.A. had in fact taken appropriate action unequivocally directed towards setting up an operational network in the objective 2 zone (2).

               —

               Second, the applicant considers that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed the principle of sound financial management laid down in Article 274 EC and in Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88.

               —

               In the alternative, that is to say in the event of the interpretation of the relevant legislation made by the Commission being held to be correct, Investire Partecipazioni S.p.A. considers that the decisions with which the present proceedings are concerned in any event constitute an infringement of the general principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and proportionality, in relation to the conduct of, and the positions taken during the management failures of the Piedmont Fund, by both the Piedmont Region and the Commission, regarding interpretation of the legislation at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Decision (97/322/EC) of 23 April 1997 modifying the decisions approving the Community support frameworks, the single programming documents and the Community initiative programmes in respect of Italy (OJ L 146 of 5.6.1997, p. 11).


title: Case T-346/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — CSL Behring v EUIPO — Vivatrex (Vivatrex)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/47

         Action brought on 28 June 2016 — CSL Behring v EUIPO — Vivatrex (Vivatrex)
   (Case T-346/16)
   (2016/C 305/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CSL Behring AG (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vivatrex GmbH (Aachen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘VIVATREX’ — Application for registration No 11 677 788

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 in joined Cases R 1263/2015-4 and R 1221/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety and annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 April 2015 given in opposition proceeding No B 2 241 613 insofar as it rejected the opposition;

               —

               uphold opposition No B 2 241 613 in its entirety;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 200 in Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for the purposes of the proceedings — Litigation insurance)

text:
21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 118/37
5)      The Italian Republic and the French Republic shall bear their            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        own costs in Case T-79/96 R.
6)      The French Republic shall bear its own costs in Case                                     of 15 December 2000
        T-260/97 R.
                                                                           in Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company and Galileo
                                                                              International LLC v Council of the European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996, C 357 of 22.11.1997 and C 327 of
      24.10.1998.
                                                                           (Action for annulment — Admissibility — Person individu-
                                                                                ally concerned)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/104)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-113/99: The Galileo Company, established in
                        of 27 November 200                                 Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom, and Galileo International
                                                                           LLC, established in Rosemount, Illinois, United States of
                                                                           America, represented by R. Plender QC and S. Masters,
in Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                   Barrister, instructed by K. Holmes and D. Austin, Solicitors,
     Elder v Commission of the European Communities (1)                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                           of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill,
                                                                           supported by Amadeus Global Travel Distribution SA, estab-
(Taxation of costs — Indispensable expenses incurred for                   lished in Madrid, Spain, represented by M. Caballero Clavijo,
     the purposes of the proceedings — Litigation insurance)               of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the offices of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston
                                                                           Churchill, against Council of the European Union (Agents:
                          (2001/C 118/103)                                 A. Lopes Sabino and M. Bishop), supported by Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: F. Benyon) — application
                                                                           for partial annulment of Article 1(7)(b) of Council Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 323/1999 of 8 February 1999 amending Council
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 on a code of conduct for
                                                                           computerised reservation systems (CRS) (OJ 1999 L 40, p. 1)
In Case T-78/99 (92): Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale                   — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
Elder, residing in Dundee, United Kingdom, represented by                  of: A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
S. Crosby, Solicitor, 42 Rue du Taciturne, Brussels (Belgium)              H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on 15 December 2000,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    the operative part of which is as follows:
U. Wölker and X. Lewis) — application for taxation of the
costs to be reimbursed by the defendant to the applicants
pursuant to the order for removal from the register made by                1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
the Court of First Instance on 13 October 1999 (Case T-78/99
Elder v Commission, not published in the ECR) — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,             2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the
President, N.J. Forwood and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                         defendant.
Registrar, has given an order on 27 November 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           3.    The interveners shall bear their own costs.
The application for taxation of costs is dismissed.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
( 1)  OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 November 2002 in Case C-471/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral "open skies" agreement with the United States of America — Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           agreements previously concluded, the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium has, by not rescinding those provisions of
                                                                                the said previously concluded agreements which are
                        of 5 November 2002                                        incompatible with the EC Treaty, especially Article 52
                                                                                thereof, and with secondary law, or by failing to take all
                                                                                legally possible steps to that end, failed to comply with
in Case C-471/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                its obligations under Article 5 of the Treaty and under
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                                secondary law,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral                 the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Sixth
                                                                            Chamber, acting for the President, R. Schintgen (President of
‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America —
Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport                  Chamber), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,
market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/                       V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
92, 2409/92 and 95/93) — External competence of the                         and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
Community — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after                         General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-
                                                                            Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on 5 Novem-
amendment, Article 43 EC) — Article 5 of the EC Treaty
                        (now Article 10 EC))                                ber 2002, in which it:
                           (2002/C 323/05)                                  1.    Declares that, by entering into or maintaining in force, despite
                                                                                the renegotiation of the air transport agreement between the
                                                                                Kingdom of Belgium and the United States of America of
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                23 October 1980, international commitments with the United
                                                                                States of America
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                —     concerning air fares and rates charged by carriers desig-
                                                                                nated by the United States of America on intra-Com-
                                                                                munity routes,
In Case C-471/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: F. Benyon) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,                        —     concerning computerised reservation systems offered for
assisted by J. H. J. Bourgeois and N. F. Köhncke), supported by                         use or used in Belgian territory, and
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and J. van
Bakel): Application for:
                                                                                —     recognising the United States of America as having the
                                                                                right to withdraw, suspend or limit traffic rights in cases
—     as its principal claim, a declaration that, by having                             where air carriers designated by the Kingdom of Belgium
      individually negotiated, initialled and concluded, in 1995,                       are not owned by the latter or by Belgian nationals, the
      and applied an ‘open skies’ agreement with the United                             Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      States of America in the field of transport, the Kingdom                          under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC                      Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      Treaty, and in particular Articles 5 (now Article 10 EC)                          Article 43 EC) and under Council Regulation (EEC)
      and 52 (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) thereof,                             No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air
      and also under secondary law adopted pursuant to                                  services and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of
      that Treaty, and in particular Council Regulation (EEC)                           24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerised
      No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers                           reservation systems, as amended by Council Regulation
      (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/                          (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993;
      92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers
      to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8),
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92 of 23 July 1992                   2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      on fares and rates for air services (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 15),
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989
      on a code of conduct for computerised reservation                     3.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs;
      systems (OJ 1989 L 220, p. 1), as amended by Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 of 29 October 1993 (OJ
      1993 L 278, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/                4.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.
      93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the
      allocation of slots at Community airports (OJ 1993 L 14,
      p. 1); and,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
—     in the alternative and, in part, in addition, a declaration
      that, in so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be regarded
      as having radically amended and thus replaced the


title: Case T-300/08: Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/21

         Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)
   (Case T-300/08)
   (2008/C 247/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1, in respect of the finding that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of objection was inadmissible;

               —

               Alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of objection is held to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such that Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of objection is held to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               Provided that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 is altered as requested, alter further the same decision so that Community trade mark No 241 810 is declared invalid on either or both of these additional grounds as appropriate; and

               —

               Order OHIM or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs. Alternatively, order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs jointly and severally.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’ for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 241 810

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

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

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which had been in use in the United Kingdom

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred when it held that the allegation based upon Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 was inadmissible, as well as when it failed to find that the objection to registration based upon Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 was admissible and well founded.


title: Case C-177/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Khoshnaw Abdullah v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Khoshnaw Abdullah v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-177/08)
   (2008/C 197/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Khoshnaw Abdullah

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 also require that, in the country of the refugee's nationality,

                           (a)

                           an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in that regard if protection can be assured only with the help of multinational troops,

                           (b)

                           the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83, which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

                           (c)

                           the security situation be stable and the general living conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

               3.

               In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances founding persecution to be

                           (a)

                           measured against the standard of probability applied for recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

                           (b)

                           assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-450/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/44/EC)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-450/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/44/EC)
   (2004/C 262/22)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-450/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive.

               2.

               The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-263/08: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Becker Flugfunkwerk v OHIM — Harman Becker Automotive Systems (BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/51

      Order of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Becker Flugfunkwerk v OHIM — Harman Becker Automotive Systems (BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS)
      (Case T-263/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2012/C 25/99)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Becker Flugfunkwerk GmbH (Rheinmünster, Germany) (represented by: O. Griebenow, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH (Karlsbad, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2008 (Case R 398/2007 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH and Becker Flugfunkwerk GmbH.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant.

         (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-190/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi, Wadat Yusufi (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 15(1)(c) — Possible limitation of that jurisdiction to distance contracts)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi, Wadat Yusufi
   (Case C-190/11) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 15(1)(c) - Possible limitation of that jurisdiction to distance contracts)
   2012/C 355/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daniela Mühlleitner

      Defendants: Ahmad Yusufi, Wadat Yusufi

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Possible limitation of that jurisdiction to distance contracts

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not requiring the contract between the consumer and the trader to be concluded at a distance.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.