title: Case T-410/06: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Calculation of the constructed normal value — Export price — Rights of the defence — Injury — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council
   (Case T-410/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Calculation of the constructed normal value - Export price - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2010/C 113/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd (Lishui, China) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented; initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 1998 in Case C-236/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Skatteministeriet v. Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Tax on transfer of shares not listed on a Stock Exchange)

text:
C 48/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.1999
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and              English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) Ð the Court
the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302, 15.11.1985,               (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President
p. 23) and as subsequently amended by Council                        of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7),             (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; S.
and on the interpretation of that regulation Ð the Court             Alber, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet                       Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de            17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet,
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council of
17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                     capital must be interpreted as allowing a tax to be
                                                                     charged in the event of a transfer of shares irrespective,
Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary            first, of whether the company issuing the shares is listed
ruling has revealed nothing of such a kind as to affect the          on a Stock Exchange and, secondly, of whether the shares
validity of heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to                   are transferred on the Stock Exchange or directly from the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                  transferor to the transferee.
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, as adapted by
part VIII of Annex I to the Act concerning the conditions
of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties and as
subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1248/92.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-244/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Hof van Cassatie): Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v.
                                                                                Gerdina Lustig (1)
                                                                     (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Old-age benefits Ð
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Articles 45 and 49 Ð Calculation of benefits where the
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               person concerned does not simultaneously fulfil the
                                                                     conditions laid down by all the legislations under which
                    of 17 December 1998                                    periods of insurance or residence were completed)
in Case C-236/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    (1999/C 48/12)
the éstre Landsret): Skatteministeriet v. Aktieselskabet
                Forsikringsselskabet Codan (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
capital Ð Tax on transfer of shares not listed on a Stock
                          Exchange)
                        (1999/C 48/11)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     In Case C-244/97: Reference to the Court under
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                     (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Pensioenen v. Gerdina Lustig Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                     Articles 45 and 49 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
In Case C-236/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                    persons and to members of their families moving within
Regional Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the            the Community, in the version amended and updated by
proceedings pending before that court between                        Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984, p. 6),
Skatteministeriet and Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet            as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136,
Codan Ð on the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of                 19.5.1992, p. 7) and Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 (OJ
Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council of 17 July 1969                  L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 10) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ,             composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,


title: Case C-75/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona — Italy) — Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures — Directive 2008/52/EC — Directive 2013/11/EU — Article 3(2) — Applications by consumers to set an order aside in the context of payment order proceedings instituted by a credit institution — Right of access to the judicial system — National legislation providing for mandatory recourse to a mediation procedure — Obligation to be assisted by a lawyer — Condition for the admissibility of proceedings before the courts)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Verona — Italy) — Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa
   (Case C-75/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures - Directive 2008/52/EC - Directive 2013/11/EU - Article 3(2) - Applications by consumers to set an order aside in the context of payment order proceedings instituted by a credit institution - Right of access to the judicial system - National legislation providing for mandatory recourse to a mediation procedure - Obligation to be assisted by a lawyer - Condition for the admissibility of proceedings before the courts))
   (2017/C 277/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Verona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Livio Menini, Maria Antonia Rampanelli

      Defendant: Banco Popolare — Società Cooperativa

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prescribes recourse to a mediation procedure, in disputes referred to in Article 2(1) of that directive, as a condition for the admissibility of legal proceedings relating to those disputes, to the extent that such a requirement does not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.
   On the other hand, that directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, in the context of such mediation, consumers must be assisted by a lawyer and that they may withdraw from a mediation procedure only if they demonstrate the existence of a valid reason in support of that decision.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case T-195/13: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015  — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — V-Contact Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (CAMEA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CAMEA — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/31

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2015 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — V-Contact Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (CAMEA)
   (Case T-195/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CAMEA - Earlier international word mark BALEA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 065/43)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: B. Beinert, O. Bludovsky and T. Strack, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Németh, P. Geroulakos and V. Melgar, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: V-Contact Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft (Szada, Hungary) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2013 (Case R 452/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and V-Contact Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action.

               2.

               orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-175/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Decision 2003/102/EC — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Aid for the preservation of olive groves in the minor islands of the Aegean Sea — Financial years 1999-2001)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-175/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Decision 2003/102/EC - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Aid for the preservation of olive groves in the minor islands of the Aegean Sea - Financial years 1999-2001)
   (2005/C 330/03)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-175/03 Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and S. Charitaki) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, avocat) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 10 April 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; Lynn Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February 2003 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) is annulled insofar as it imposed on the Hellenic Republic a flat-rate correction of 25 % for the financial years 1999-2001 (public storage sector) in the sum of Euro 9 926 005,21.

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003


title: Case T-693/14: Action brought on 24 September 2014  — Hamr Sport v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/36

         Action brought on 24 September 2014 — Hamr Sport v Commission
   (Case T-693/14)
   (2015/C 007/40)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamr Sport a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Capoušek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Commission decision of 11 June 2014 (S.A.33575 — Non-profit sports facilities) invalid;

               —

               annul the contested decision of the European Commission; and

               —

               refer the case back to the European Commission for further investigation and the adoption of measures to remedy the situation described.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The contested decision is incorrect, because the defendant, in the proceedings which preceded the contested decision, did not properly respond to all of the applicant’s evidence and statements, and in particular as to whether the existence of unlawful State aid was proven.

               2.

               The defendant may not rely, for the purposes of its conclusion in the contested decision, on the exception set out in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since the conditions and prior requirements for its application are not fulfilled.

               3.

               By reason of its legal personality (as a commercial company) the applicant does not have the right to participate in any procedure for the grant of subsidies provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, even if it effectively operates on the same market as its competitors and supports the same target group of persons — the recipients (who are also identical in terms of the general/public interest).


title: Case T-417/17: Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/54

         Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese)
   (Case T-417/17)
   (2017/C 277/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

      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 in colour containing the word elements ‘fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese’ — Application for registration No 11 180 791

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 in Case R 2650/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-167/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Commission v Liotti (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Career Development Report — 2006 appraisal procedure — General Implementing Provisions — Application of the appraisal standards consistently and through consultation)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — Commission v Liotti
   (Case T-167/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Career Development Report - 2006 appraisal procedure - General Implementing Provisions - Application of the appraisal standards consistently and through consultation)
   2012/C 118/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-38/08 Liotti v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-I-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and for that judgment to be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Amerigo Liotti in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-304/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem
   (Case C-304/04)
   (2004/C 228/60)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem on the following question:
   Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) of 4 November 1997 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as it provides that heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature includes the sound cards described at paragraph 2.3 above?

      (1)  OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.


title: Case T-350/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO — CG (p) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark likely to be perceived as the letter ‘p’ — Earlier EU and national figurative marks P PROTECTIVE and P — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Perry Ellis International Group v EUIPO — CG (p)
   (Case T-350/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark likely to be perceived as the letter ‘p’ - Earlier EU and national figurative marks P PROTECTIVE and P - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 428/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: O. Günzel, V. Ahmann and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova, M. Fischer and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber and T.- E. Vlah, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 2441/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between CG Verwaltungsgesellschaft and Perry Ellis International Group Holdings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case C-29/05 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2005 (fax: 25 January 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-164/02 between Kaul GmbH and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/11

         Appeal brought on 28 January 2005 (fax: 25 January 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-164/02 between
         Kaul GmbH
       and
         Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
       (other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG)
   (Case C-29/05 P)
   (2005/C 82/23)
   Language of the case: German
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-164/02 between Kaul GmbH and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 (fax: 25 January 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by Alexander von Mühlendahl, Vice President of the Office, and Gregor Schneider, a member of the Industrial Property Litigation Unit, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Bayer AG.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the contested judgment;

               2.

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the additional pleas in law;

               3.

               order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 43(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (‘the CTMR’) and Rules 16(3) and 20(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1) by obliging the Board of Appeal of the Office, by virtue of continuity in terms of functions, to take into consideration new submissions of fact and new evidence in opposition proceedings, even though the party to the proceedings did not lodge those submissions or submit that evidence within the time-limit set by the Opposition Division. The obligation to examine evidence submitted for the first time before the Board of Appeal, which the Court of First Instance infers in inter partes proceedings from continuity in terms of functions, has no basis in the provisions of the CTMR or the implementing regulation.

               2.

               The Court of First Instance infringed Article 74(2) of the CTMR by requiring the Board of Appeal to have regard to new submissions of fact and new evidence even though the time-limits applicable to such submissions are ‘mandatory time-limits’ in proceedings before the Opposition Division and the opposing party did not lodge those submissions or submit that evidence within the time-limit set by the Opposition Division.

               3.

               The Court of First Instance also infringed Article 74(2) of the CTMR by allowing application of that provision in appeal proceedings only where new submissions are lodged or new evidence submitted after the expiry of the time-limit for substantiating the appeal.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by judgment of 19 May 1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-182/95)

text:
No C 208/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        12 . 8 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Commerce de Nivelles by judgment of that court of 2 June               Hamburg by judgment of 19 May 1995 in the case of T. Port
1995 in the case of Biogen Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham                           GmbH & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
                           Biologicals SA                                                          ( Case C-l 82/95 )
                         ( Case C-181 /95 )                                                           ( 95/C 208/23 )
                           ( 95/C 208/22
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Joint Senate of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court) Hamburg for the Lander
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                  of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony
Commerce de Nivelles ( Commercial Court, Nivelles ) of                 and Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 19 May 1995 ,
2 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on              which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 1995 ,
12 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Biogen          for a preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co v.
Inc . v. Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA on the following            Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg-Jonas
questions :                                                            on the following questions :
                                                                       1 . Is the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty to
1 . In the event that the holder of the basic patent or his                  be interpreted as meaning that the application of
     successor in title is a person other than the holder of the             Articles I, II and III of the GATT takes precedence in the
     authorization to place the medical product concerned                    Federal Republic of Germany over Articles 18 and 19 in
     on the market, is the latter obliged to provide to the                  conjunction with Article 17 of Regulation ( EEC )
     patent holder on request, or, where appropriate, several                No 404/93 (')?
     patent holders when they so request, the 'copy' of that
     authorization which is referred to in Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992
                                                                       2 . ( a ) Is Regulation ( EC ) No 478/95 ( 2 ), which is based on
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , valid ?
     concerning the creation of a supplementary protection
     certificate for medicinal products (')?
                                                                             ( b ) If so, is the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that the
2 . Where one and the same product is covered by several                           application of Article XIII of the GATT takes
      basic patents belonging to different holders, does                           precedence over that regulation ?
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 preclude the grant of a
     supplementary protection certificate to each holder of a          3 . In the event that questions 1 and 2 ( b ) are answered in
      basic patent ?                                                         the affirmative : are Community citizens entitled to rely
                                                                             in proceedings before the courts of Member States of the
                                                                             Community on the precedence of the aforesaid GATT
3 . Regard being had to the wording of Article 6 of                          provisions as regards their application ?
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92, may the holder of the
      authorization to place the medicinal product on the
      market refuse to give a holder of a basic patent or his          4 . On what conditions may a court of a Member State
      successor in title the copy of that authorization referred             grant interim relief by issuing an interim injunction
      to in Article 8 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the regulation and thereby              where it has doubts as to the applicability of the
      deprive him of the possibility of completing his                       secondary Community law which underlies the legal
      application for a             supplementary protection                 appraisal ?
     certificate ?
                                                                       (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 13 .
4 . May the relevant administrative and/or government
      authority which granted the authorization to place the
      product on the market or is the depositary of an original
      or a copy of the said authorization refuse to supply a
      copy to the holder of the basic patent or patents
      concerned or to his successor in title or may it decide,         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
      arbitrarily or subject to certain conditions , whether it is     Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of 24 May 1995
      advisable to provide or communicate such copy with a             in the case of Affish BV and Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van
      view to its being used to support an application for a                                            Vee en Vlees
      supplementary protection certificate under the                                                ( Case C-l 83/95 )
      provisions of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/24 )
(>) OJ No L 182 , 2 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a judgment of the College van
                                                                        Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for
                                                                        Trade and Industry) of 24 May 1995 , which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 12 June 1 995 , for a preliminary ruling


title: Case C-683/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã (Portugal) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã (Portugal) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA and Others v Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)
   (Case C-683/13)
   2014/C 52/57
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho da Covilhã

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pharmacontinente Saúde e Higiene SA, Domingos Sequeira de Almeida, Luis Mesquita Soares Moutinho, Rui Teixeira Soares de Almeida, André de Carvalho e Sousa

      Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições do Trabalho (ACT)

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Is Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘personal data’ covers the record of working time, that is to say, the indication, in relation to each worker, of the times at which working hours begin and end, together with the related breaks and intervals?

               (b)

               If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, is the Portuguese State obliged, under Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC, to adopt appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where processing involves the transmission of data over a network?

               (c)

               If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, if ever the Member State does not adopt any measure pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and if an employer, as a controller of such data, adopts a system of restricted access to those data which does not allow automatic access by the national authority responsible for monitoring working conditions, is the principle of the primacy of European Union law to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State cannot penalise the employer for such behaviour?

               (d)

               If the answer to Question (c) is in the negative, while it has not been shown or argued that the information from the record has not, in the present case, been altered, is the requirement that a record be immediately available, enabling all parties to the employment relationship to have general access to the data, proportionate?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).


title: Case T-802/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah. C) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Lenah.C — Earlier national word mark LEMA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v OHIM — michelle menard (Lenah. C)
   (Case T-802/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Lenah.C - Earlier national word mark LEMA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 090/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodriguez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics (Berlin, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2014 (Case R 2260/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern, S A and michelle menard GmbH — Berlin cosmetics.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laboratorios Ern, S A to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-464/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2010 — Belgian State v Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2010 — Belgian State v Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)
   (Case C-464/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/49
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian State

      Defendants: Maître Pierre Henfling, Maître Raphaël Davin, Maître Koenraad Tanghe (acting as trustees in bankruptcy of Tiercé Franco-Belge SA)

      Question referred

   Must Articles 6(4) and 13(B)(f), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, be interpreted as precluding tax exemption in respect of services supplied by a commission agent acting in its own name, but on behalf of a principal who organises supply of services referred to in Article 13(B)(f)?


title: Case T-504/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VÖLKL — Earlier international word mark VÖLKL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Refusal in part of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Competence of the Board of Appeal in the case of an appeal limited to part of the goods or services covered by the application for registration — Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for variation of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2011 — Völkl v OHIM — Marker Völkl (VÖLKL)
   (Case T-504/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VÖLKL - Earlier international word mark VÖLKL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal in part of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Competence of the Board of Appeal in the case of an appeal limited to part of the goods or services covered by the application for registration - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Application for variation of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 32/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marker Völkl International GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Marker Völkl International GmbH and Völkl GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 September 2009 (Case R 1387/2008-1);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Völkl GmbH & Co. KG;

               4.

               Orders Marker Völkl International GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case F-60/09 DEP: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5.12.2013 Birkhoff v Commission (Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/34

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5.12.2013 Birkhoff v Commission
      (Case F-60/09 DEP)
      (Civil service - Procedure - Taxation of costs - No need to adjudicate)
      (2014/C 71/67)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Isny, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for taxation of costs in Case F 60/09 DEP, Birkhoff v Commission.

                  2.

                  The parties are to bear their own costs incurred in respect of the present taxation of costs proceedings.


title: Case T-377/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Ezz v Council

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/20

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Ezz v Council
   (Case T-377/14) (1)

   (2016/C 165/25)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-298/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/47

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission
   (Case T-298/14)
   2014/C 223/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the support for renewable electricity and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it applies to the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the applicant states that energy-intensive users are not favoured by the arrangement. The special compensation regime is, instead, compensation for exceptional costs which affect the applicant and comparable users to a special degree in the context of the support for renewable electricity, and is intended to re-establish the competitiveness of energy-intensive users who were initially considerably adversely affected by the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue.

                           —

                           The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).


title: Case T-139/04: Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/7

         Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-139/04)
   (2004/C 168/13)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens, resident in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2003 inasmuch as it:

                           —

                           did not classify the applicant in Grade A6, step 3, at the time of his recruitment;

                           —

                           did not reconstitute the career in terms of the applicant's grade by bringing forward the date of his promotions to Grades A5 and A4;

                           —

                           limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 January 2004, served on the applicant on 30 January 2004, rejecting his complaint R/521/03;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation provisionally set in the amount of EUR 125 000 in the event that, owing to impossibility, it is unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in terms of his grade;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In these proceedings, the applicant, who, on his recruitment in October 1985, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges the decision of the appointing authority refusing to revise that classification, placing him in Grade A6, step 2, and not in Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification to 5 October 1995.
   The pleas relied on by the applicant in support of his claims are the same as those relied on by the applicant in Case T-125/04 Rousseaux v Commission.


title: Case C-220/03: Action brought on 21 May 2003 by the European Central Bank against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 200/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
Action brought on 21 May 2003 by the European Central                         (b) EUR 33 255,23 for the turnover tax included in the
        Bank against the Federal Republic of Germany                               ancillary charges and costs paid in respect of the
                                                                                rental property Kaiserstraße 29 (Eurotower);
                          (Case C-220/03)                                     (c)  EUR 1 115 675,75 for the turnover tax included in
                                                                                rental payments for the rental property Neue
                                                                                Mainzer Straße / Junghofstraße (Eurotheum);
                          (2003/C 200/15)                                     (d) EUR 1 892 434,00 for the turnover tax included in
                                                                                payments for construction and planning services in
                                                                                the construction of the rental property Neue Mainzer
                                                                                Straße / Junghofstraße (Eurotheum).
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        3.    Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany is, in
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
                                                                              principle, also obliged to refund to the ECB the following
nities on 21 May 2003 by the European Central Bank, repre-
                                                                              amounts of turnover tax:
sented by Chiara Zilioli, Head of the Institutional Law Division
of the European Central Bank, Martin Benisch, Senior Legal
Counsel in the Institutional Law Division of the European
Central Bank, assisted by Hans-Georg Kamann and Martin                        (a)  the turnover tax included in the ancillary charges
Selmeyr, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                and costs paid in respect of the rental property
                                                                                Kaiserstraße 29 (Eurotower) in so far as these are
                                                                                not included in point 2(b);
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              (b) the turnover tax included in the ancillary charges
                                                                                and costs paid in respect of the rental property Neue
                                                                                Mainzer Straße/Junghofstraße (Eurotheum).
1.    Declare that on a proper construction of Article 8(1) of
      the Agreement between the Government of the Federal               4.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank on                    of the proceedings.
      the seat of the European Central Bank (1), in conjunction
      with Articles 3(2) and 23(1) of the Protocol on the
      privileges and immunities of the European Communities,
      the Federal Republic of Germany is required to refund to
      The European Central Bank all turnover tax included in
      the price of goods and services bought or obtained by the
      European Central Bank for use in its operations in so far
      as the tax owed on those transactions exceeds, in each            Pleas in law and main arguments
      individual case, DEM 50 and has in fact been paid by the
      European Central Bank. That duty to make a refund
      covers the turnover tax separately invoiced to the                The ECB alleges that the Federal Republic of Germany has
      European Central Bank as well as all other turnover tax,          infringed Article 8(1) of the Agreement on the seat of the
      which can be proved, or at least assumed, on the basis of         ECB, in conjunction with Articles 3(2) and 23(1) of the
      a rational economic assessment, to be included in the             Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European
      prices paid by the European Central Bank.                         Communities of 8 April 1965 (2). Those provisions exempt the
                                                                        ECB from the payment of all turnover tax included in the price
                                                                        of goods and services used by the ECB in its operations.
2.    Declare that under Article 8(1) of the Agreement between
      the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and             Despite that exemption from turnover tax, which is directly
      the European Central Bank on the seat of the European             enshrined in European Community law, it can be proven that
      Central Bank, in conjunction with Articles 3(2) and 23(1)         the ECB is required to pay turnover tax indirectly in Germany
      of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the           on the rent on properties for use in its operations and on the
      European Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany             associated services it receives, such as conversion and cleaning
      is obliged to refund to the European Central Bank the             services. The German tax authorities have as yet refused to
      following amounts of turnover tax:                                refund that proven indirect turnover tax charge.
                                                                        (1) BGBl. 1998 II, p. 2744.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1967 152, p. 13, in the version of the Amsterdam Treaty of
      (a)   EUR 7 678 347,62 for the turnover tax included in               2 October 1997, OJ 1997 C 340, p. 1.
            rental payments       for    the rental property
            Kaiserstraße 29 (Eurotower);


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Repayment of mission expenses — Business class air travel)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 213/29
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                            J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: D. Christensen,
                                                                            Administrator, has given a judgment on 8 July 2003, in which
3.     Orders Daesang Corp. and Sewon Europe GmbH to bear their
                                                                            it:
       own costs and, jointly and severally, to pay two thirds of the
       Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to bear one
       third of its own costs.                                              1.     Declared the application to be inadmissible in so far as it seeks
                                                                                annulment of Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of 14 September
                                                                                2000;
( 1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                            2.     Declared the application to be admissible but unfounded in so
                                                                                far as it seeks annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045 of
                                                                                5 September 2000;
                                                                            3.     Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay
                                                                                those incurred by the Commission and by Salzgitter and
                                                                                Mannesmann.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ No C 61 of 24.2.01.
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                             of 8 July 2003
in Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
(Control of concentrations — Concentration covered partly
by the ECSC Treaty and partly by the EC Treaty — Decision
                                                                            in Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou v Commission of the
to authorise on the basis of Article 66(2) CS — Decision
                                                                                European Communities (1)
declaring compatibility with the common market on the basis
of Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 —
Conditions for admissibility under the ECSC Treaty and the                  (Officials — Repayment of mission expenses — Business
EC Treaty — Relationship between the rules on control of                                               class air travel)
concentrations laid down in the ECSC Treaty and the EC
   Treaty — Duty to state reasons — Erroneous assessment)                                             (2003/C 213/56)
                           (2003/C 213/55)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-22/01 Petros Efthymiou, an official of the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
In Case T-374/00: Verband der freien Rohrwerke eV, estab-
lished in Düsseldorf (Germany), Eisen- und Metallwerke                      H. Tserepa-Lacombe), — application for annulment of the
                                                                            Commission’s decision of 24 March 2000 making three
Ferndorf GmbH, established in Kreuztal-Ferndorf (Germany),
Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG, established in Siegen                         ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts and
                                                                            charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed and, in
(Germany), represented by H. Hellmann, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                            addition, a request that the Commission should be ordered to
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
W. Wils), supported by Mannesmann AG, established in                        repay to the applicant the amounts deducted from his
                                                                            remuneration by way of sums overclaimed, — the Court of
Düsseldorf, represented by K. Moosecker and P. Niggemann,
                                                                            First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
lawyers, and by Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter
                                                                            dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers
                                                                            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
— application for annulment of Decision COMP/M.2045
of 5 September 2000 and Decision COMP/ECSC.1336 of                          9 July 2003, in which it:
14 September 2000, by which the Commission authorised, on
the basis of, respectively, Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)             1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2003 making
No 4064/89 and Article 66(2) CS, the acquisition by Salzgitter                     three ‘supplementary amendments’ to mission expense accounts
of control of Mannesmannröhren-Werke — the Court of First                          and charging to the applicant the sums overclaimed inasmuch
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/30                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       6.9.2003
       as it charges to the applicant, for the mission to the Hague of       President, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers,
       12 to 18 August 1999, a sum overclaimed in respect of air             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
       travel costs of BEF 1 921 instead of BEF 1 291;                       25 June 2003, in which it:
2.     Orders the defendant to repay to the applicant the sum of             1.     Dismisses the application;
       EUR 15,62 together with interest to run from 26 June 2000,
       at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal
       refinancing operations applicable for the period in question,         2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
       increased by two points;
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           (1 ) OJ No C 150 of 19 May 2001.
4.     Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay one-sixth
       of those incurred by the applicant.
( 1) OJ No C 79 of 10 March 2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 July 2003
                                                                             in Case T-122/01: Best Buy Concepts Inc. v Office for
                                                                             Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the
                           of 25 June 2003                                   word mark ‘best buy’ — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                             Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
in Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/58)
(Officials — Internal competition — Exclusion from the oral
                                  test)                                                         (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 213/57)
                                                                             In Case T-122/01, Best Buy Concepts Inc., established in Eden
                                                                             Prairie, Minnesota (United States), represented by S. Rojahn,
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider):
                                                                             Application for annulment of the decision of the Third Board
                                                                             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case
In Case T-72/01 Norman Pyres, a former member of the                         R 44/2000-3) concerning an application for registration of a
temporary staff, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by              figurative mark containing the word mark ‘best buy’ as a
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats, against the Commission                 Community trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second
of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application                Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung
for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in                      and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
competition COM/TA/99 excluding the applicant from the                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which
oral test in the competition and of all subsequent operations                it:
and acts in the competition and, additionally, a claim for
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,              1.     Dismisses the application;


title: Case C-385/04: Action brought on 7 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/25

         Action brought on 7 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
   (Case C-385/04)
   (2004/C 262/46)
   An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Wouter Wils, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               2)

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 20 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 110, 20.04.2001, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2004 in Case C-65/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC — Secondary education diploma awarded in another Member State — Access to higher education)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 July 2004
   in Case C-65/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC - Secondary education diploma awarded in another Member State - Access to higher education)
   (2004/C 217/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-65/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States can gain access to higher education organised by Belgium's French Community under the same conditions as holders of the certificat d'enseignement secondaire supérieur (CESS), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas obtained in other Member States can gain access to higher education organised by Belgium's French Community under the same conditions as holders of the certificat d'enseignement secondaire supérieur (CESS), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 149 EC and 150 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case T-134/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014  — Germany v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/40

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-134/14)
   2014/C 142/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and T. Lübbig, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2013) 4424 final;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) and of Article 108(2) TFEU
               The applicant submits here that the defendant initiated the formal investigation procedure without satisfying its special duty of care to clarify the facts completely. Had the Commission carefully clarified the facts, there would have been no reason to open the formal investigation procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the facts
               By the second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission misunderstood the underlying facts, namely the functioning of the Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, in particular the financial flows system under that law. In addition, the Commission misunderstood the role ‘of the State’ as legislator and as body with responsibility for supervisory authorities and incorrectly deduced a situation of control therefrom.

               3.

               Third plea in law: No favouring of energy-intensive users through the special compensation scheme
               The applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU by accepting, contrary to the case-law of the General Court, that energy-intensive users had been favoured.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: No favouring through State resources
               The applicant submits here that the Commission also erred in law in applying Article 107(1) TFEU in this respect when it accepted that public authorities had control over the assets of the various private companies participating in the regime of the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Articles 30 and 110 TFEU
               By the fifth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principle of a proper administrative procedure and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by reviewing the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources in accordance with Articles 30 and 110 TFEU, although the method by which that law functions has been known to it for over ten years. The Commission also errs in law in applying Articles 30 and 110 TFEU because there is neither any taxation within the meaning of those provisions nor any discriminatory situation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-238/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014  — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/10

         Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-238/14)
   2014/C 235/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1);

               —

               order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the framework agreement.
   The Commission considers that, for that category of workers, Luxembourg law does not provide for any objective reason allowing for the prevention of abuse of successive fixed-term contracts, contrary to Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex to the framework agreement in question.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 1998 in Case C-194/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln): Generalstaatsanwaltschaft v Eckard Pörschke (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded between certain Member States and Article 8 of Directive 93/89/EEC - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
C 71/2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                13.3.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including those
                                                                        relating to the intervention by NSK Ltd, NSK Bearings
                     of 19 January 1999
                                                                        Europe Ltd, NSK-RHP France SA, NSK-RHP UK
in Case C-245/95 P-INT: NSK Ltd and Others, the other                   Ltd, NSK-RHP Deutschland GmbH, NSK-RHP Italia
parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the                     SpA, NSK-RHP Nederland BV, NSK-RHP European
            European Communities and others (1)                         Distribution Centre BV and NSK-RHP Iberica SA.
(Appeal Ð Dumping Ð Ball bearings originating in Japan
                      Ð Interpretation)
                                                                    2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of this
                       (1999/C 71/02)                                   application.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    3. The original of this judgment shall be appended to the
                                                                        original of the judgment interpreted. This judgment
In Case C-245/95 P-INT: NSK Ltd, a company                              shall be mentioned in the margin of the original of the
incorporated under Japanese law, whose registered office                judgment interpreted.
is in Tokyo (Japan), and eight of its European subsidiaries,
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd, a company incorporated under
                                                                    (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
English law, whose registered office is in London,                      OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
NSK-RHP France SA, a company incorporated under
French law, whose registered office is in Guyancourt
(France), NSK-RHP UK Ltd, a company incorporated
under English law, whose registered office is in
Ruddington (United Kingdom), NSK-RHP Deutschland
GmbH, a company incorporated under German law,
whose registered office is in Ratingen (Germany),
NSK-RHP Italia SpA, a company incorporated under                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
Italian law, whose registered office is in Milan (Italy),
NSK-RHP Nederland BV, a company incorporated under                                        (Fourth Chamber)
Netherlands law, whose registered office is in Amstelveen
(Netherlands), NSK-RHP European Distribution Centre                                     of 12 November 1998
BV, a company incorporated under Netherlands law,                   in Case C-194/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
whose registered office is in Amstelveen (Netherlands),             the Oberlandesgericht Köln): Generalstaatsanwaltschaft v
and NSK-RHP Iberica SA, a company incorporated under                                     Eckard Pörschke (1)
Spanish law, whose registered office is in Barcelona
(Spain), all represented by David Vaughan QC, instructed            (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded
by Robin Griffith, Solicitor, 200 Aldersgate Street, London         between certain Member States and Article 8 of Directive
EC1A 4JJ Ð application for interpretation of the second                   93/89/EEC Ð Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
point of the operative part of the judgment of 10 February
1998 in Case C-245/95 P Commission v NTN and Koyo                                           (1999/C 71/03)
Seiko [1998] ECR I-401, the other parties to the
proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan),
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
NTN Corporation, a company incorporated under
Japanese law, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan),
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd, a company incorporated under
Japanese law, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan),          In Case C-194/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
Council of the European Union, and Federation of                    of the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Köln
European Bearing Manufacturers' Associations, whose                 (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
registered office is in Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany) Ð               pending before that court between Generalstaatsanwalt-
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                   schaft and Eckard Pörschke on the interpretation of
President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and        Article 8(1) of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 on the
P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.             commercial vehicles, concluded between the Governments
Edward, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.                  of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of
Wathelet, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; R. Grass,            Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 January 1999, in              Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
which it declares:                                                  (Bundesgesetzblatt 1994, Part II, p. 1768) Ð the Court
                                                                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and
1. Point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of                 H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     10 February 1998, Commission v NTN and Koyo                    Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
     Seiko (C-245/95 P), is to be interpreted to the effect         on 12 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
     that the Commission of the European Communities is             follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/3
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the              Appeal brought on 11 December 1998 by EugeÂnio
reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Oberlan-              Branco, Lda against the judgment delivered on
desgericht Köln by order of 8 May 1998.                              15 September 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court
                                                                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-142/97 between EugeÂnio Branco, Lda and the
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-453/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/05)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September
                                                                     1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     of the European Communities in Case T-142/97 between
                     of 19 November 1998                             EugeÂnio Branco Lda and the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of                the European Communities on 11 December 1998 by
                 the European Communities (1)                        EugeÂnio Branco Lda, represented by Bolota Belchior, of
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)              the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
                         (1999/C 71/04)                              Heine.
                (Language of the case: French)                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance
          published in the European Court Reports)                       under appeal;
In Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller, a former official             Ð uphold all the claims made at first instance; and
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
in Brussels, represented by Benoît Lombart and Eric
Boigelot, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 19 February 1998 in
Case T-142/96 Toller v Commission [1998] ECR-SC
II-179, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other           Ð Failure to comply with and infringement of Article 5(4)
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1): Paragraphs 47
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall,                     and 49 of the judgment under appeal constitute an
Legal Adviser, and Christine Berardis-Kayser, of its Legal               error of assessment by the lower court. It is not
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck Ð                factually correct to claim that the InspeccËaÄo Geral de
the Court (First Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,                  FinancËas (General Tax Inspectorate) audited the
acting for the President of the First Chamber, L. Sevón                  appellant's file at the request of the DAFSE, that, at
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General:                  the material time, it was empowered to conduct
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar: R. Grass, made an                     investigations into ESF projects or that it found
order on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which                   irregularities' not previously detected by the DAFSE.
is as follows:
                                                                     Ð Breach of the principles of protection of legitimate
(1) The appeal is dismissed;                                             expectations and legal certainty: The appellant
                                                                         contests the judgment under appeal inasmuch as it
                                                                         regards the period of two years (between 12 January
(2) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller's application for legal aid is                 1995 and 16 December 1996) as a reasonable period
     dismissed;                                                          for adopting the contested decision. The fact that the
                                                                         Court of First Instance did not set out its views, in
                                                                         Case T-85/94 (2), on the legality of the reduction in the
(3) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller is ordered to pay the costs.                   assistance but ruled only that the decision at issue did
                                                                         not contain a statement of reasons is not such as to
(1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.                                                 prevent giving rise to and reinforcing legitimate
                                                                         expectations on the part of the appellant. Indeed, since
                                                                         the final payment claim was certified by the DAFSE
                                                                         and the Commission's decision against such


title: Case T-278/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Social security — Industrial accident — Decision to close the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Lack of an act causing adverse effect — Appeal unfounded)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-278/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Social security - Industrial accident - Decision to close the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Lack of an act causing adverse effect - Appeal unfounded)
   (2008/C 313/57)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 May 2007Marcuccio v Commission (Case F-2/06, not yet published in the ECR), for the annulment of that order.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Luigi Marcuccio to bear his own costs and to pay the Commission's costs before this Court.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-40/17: Action brought on 19 January 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO — Here Global (h)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/30

         Action brought on 19 January 2017 — Habermaaß v EUIPO — Here Global (h)
   (Case T-40/17)
   (2017/C 086/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Habermaaß GmbH AG (Bad Rodach, Germany) (represented by: U. Blumenröder, H. Gauß and E. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Here Global BV (Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘h’ — Application for registration No 12 833 141

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2016 in Case R 53/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 41 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the legal principles to be considered when applying and interpreting the Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 135(4) of the Rules of procedure.


title: Case T-129/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores v OHIM — Sánchez Villar (WAL-MART)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 April 2007 — Wal-Mart Stores v OHIM — Sánchez Villar (WAL-MART)
   (Case T-129/05) (1)

   (2007/C 96/78)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-400/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/51

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
   (Case T-400/08)
   (2008/C 301/87)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 in case R 957/2006-4, insofar as it dismisses the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition number B 760 605; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in classes 1, 2 and 4

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 137 828 of the word mark ‘ENERGOL’ for goods in classes 1 and 4

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition except for the goods that were found dissimilar

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal for the goods that were found dissimilar and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.