title: Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Paolo Mozzaglia against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-137/95)

text:
No C 229/24            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Industria del Frio Auxiliar            effect is to modify a situation existing at a specified date,
Conservera SA against the Commission of the European                    date which in any event is that of publication of the
                           Communities                                  measure .
                        ( Case T-136/95 )
                          ( 95/C 229/52 )                               With regard to the claim for compensation, the applicant
                                                                        stresses that it seeks compensation for the loss and harm it
                                                                        has suffered as a consequence of the Commission's act, the
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                         retroactive effects of which infringe sufficiently clearly
                                                                        superior rules of law which protect the applicant's interests,
                                                                        the amount to be increased by appropriate legal interest.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 1995 by
Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera SA, whose registered
office is in Bermeo ( Spain ), represented by Ignacio
Saenz-Cortabarria Fernandez and Marta Morales Isasi,
both of the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8—10 Rue
Mathias Hardt,                                                          Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Paolo Mozzaglia against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-137/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/53 )
— annul Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April 1995
    concerning certain protective measures with regard to                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    fishery products originating in Japan in so far as it affects
    products in transit to the Community,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
— order the European Community to compensate the                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
     applicant for loss and damage resulting from the                   Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 1995 by
     unlawful application of Commission Decision                        Paolo Mozzaglia, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, a
     95/ 119/EC of 7 April 1995 and fix the amount at Pta                Counsel before the Court of Cassation of the Italian
     18 396 133 pending subsequent settlement based on the              Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     sale price of 50 tonnes of frozen 'alalunga ' tuna in Puerto        Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
     Rico, or at least in the amount that the Court consider
     appropriate, increased by statutory interest at the rate of
     9 % and default interest from the date of lodging this              The applicant claims that the Court ahould:
     application,
                                                                         — annul the refusal of the Commission to pay installation
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                       and daily allowances to the applicant and to reimburse
                                                                               travelling expenses to his place of employment,
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     — declare the above payments owing to the applicant,
                                                                               together with interest at 8 % from the date of the claim
 The applicant claims, first, that the contested decision                      until the date of actual payment,
 prejudices his rights in so far as it infringes general principles
 of Community law, in particular the principles of legal                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 certainty and non-retroactivity of laws, protection of
 legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal
 treatment, in not excluding from its scope goods in transit to
 the Community when it entered into force. The applicant                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 claims, secondly, that the Commission has not complied
 with its obligation under Article 190 of the EC Treaty to               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
 state reasons for its acts, since the contested decision                Case T-33/95 ( J ).
 contains a series of contradictions which obscure the real
 reasons which led it to apply the decision retroactively. The
 applicant pleads, finally, abuse of power, claiming that the            i 1 ) OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 14.
 Commission was not empowered by the Council to apply to
 fishery products originating in Japan a measure prohibiting
 import with retroactive effect since, on the basis of Directive
 90/675 , the Commission may only adopt measures whose


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  26 January 2006  in Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel in Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid v Herbosch Kiere NV (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member State — Scope of E 101 certificate)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 26 January 2006
   in Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel in Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid v Herbosch Kiere NV (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Determination of the legislation applicable - Workers posted to another Member State - Scope of E 101 certificate)
   (2006/C 86/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 23 December 2004, received at the Court on 5 January 2005, in the proceedings between Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid and Herbosch Kiere NV — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of N. Colneric (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2006, in which it ruled:
   As long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the authorities of the Member State which issued it, an E 101 certificate issued under Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991, binds the competent institution and the courts of the Member State in which the workers are posted. Consequently, a court of the host Member State of such workers is not entitled to scrutinise the validity of an E 101 certificate as regards the certification of the matters on the basis of which such a certificate was issued, in particular the existence of a direct relationship, within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 2195/91, read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Decision No 128 of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers of 17 October 1985 concerning the application of Articles 14(1)(a) and 14b(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, between the undertaking established in a Member State and the workers which it has posted to another Member State, during the period of their posting.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.


title: Case T-170/09: Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fastener and Shanghai Prime Machinery v Council

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/45

         Action brought on 24 April 2009 — Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fastener and Shanghai Prime Machinery v Council
   (Case T-170/09)
   2009/C 153/89
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fastener (Shanghai, China) and Shanghai Prime Machinery (Shanghai, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron and steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, insofar as:

                           —

                           the three-month time limit for disclosing market economy treatment findings was not respected, in breach of the second paragraph of Article 2(7)(c);

                           —

                           it unjustifiably rejects the applicants’ market economy treatment claim in breach of Article 2(7)(c), first part of the first indent, of the basic Regulation;

                           —

                           it unjustifiably rejects the applicants’ market economy treatment claim in breach of Article 2(7)(c), second part of the first indent, of the basic Regulation;

                           —

                           its findings are based on insufficient information in breach of the duty of examining carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case as guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures;

                           —

                           it places a burden of proof on exporting producers seeking market economy treatment inconsistent with general principles of Community law, in particular the principle of sound administration;

                           —

                           it is in breach of Articles 1.1 and 1.2, Article 2, Article 3.1, Article 5, Article 6, Article 8, Article 10.1, Article 11 and Article 15 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation as it uses the rejection of market economy treatment in order to countervail subsidies;

                           —

                           it fails to adjust a difference demonstrated to affect price comparability, in breach of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation,

                           —

                           it fails to give reasons for maintaining the market economy treatment rejection in breach of Article 253 EC;

                           —

                           its findings were based on a procedure in breach of the fundamental right of defence of the applicants, preventing them from effectively contesting some findings essential to the calculation of the duties, and the outcome of the investigation; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of the contested regulation on the following grounds:
   In respect of their first head of claim, the applicants submit that the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation has been breached as the market economy treatment (“MET”) decision was disclosed after the three-month time limit established in this Article, and after the Commission had all essential information to calculate the applicants’ dumping margin.
   In respect of their second head of claim, the applicants submit that the contested regulation is in breach of the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) as it rejected the applicants’ claim for MET even though the applicants had demonstrated that they take their business decisions purely on response to market signals without any State interference. According to the applicants the contested regulation failed to identify any fact that would point to any State interference prior to, during or after the period of investigation. The applicants moreover contend, in respect of their third head of claim, that the contested regulation is in breach of the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) as it rejected the applicants’ claim for MET after the applicants had overcome their burden of proof and demonstrated that the costs of major inputs reflect market values.
   In respect of their fourth head of claim, the applicants contend that the facts of the case lack careful and impartial examination. More precisely, the conclusion that raw material prices in China were distorted due to subsidization, which was used as the grounds for considering that the applicants did not buy input at market value, was based on insufficient information and the Commission did not properly assess the evidence concerning the steel sector in China.
   In respect of their fifth head of claim, the applicants submit that the contested regulation is in breach of general principles of EC law and in particular, the principle of sound administration, also set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, since an unreasonable burden of proof was imposed on them in order to demonstrate that market economy conditions prevail, as required by Article 2(7)(b).
   In respect of their sixth head of claim, the applicants put forward that the contested regulation is in breach of the anti-subsidy regulation as it allegedly used MET rejection in an antidumping investigation to compensate for subsidies that could only be addressed by the anti-subsidy basic Regulation after due investigation.
   In respect of their eighth claim, the applicants argue that there is no legal basis for denying adjustment to the normal value based on the argument that raw material price is distorted, contrary to the reasons given by the EU institution in order to reject their claim for adjustment under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic Regulation.
   In respect of their ninth head of claim, the applicants claim that in the definitive disclosure document proposing the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission simply rephrased and repeated the same argument used in the MET disclosure document, without analysing the evidence provided and giving reasons for the rejection. Moreover, the applicants claim that the contested regulation did not provide any reasons for confirming the rejection of the evidence provided by the applicants.
   Finally, in respect of their last head of claim, the applicants submit that their rights of defence were breached, since they were prevented from accessing essential information regarding the calculation of normal value and dumping margins.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-242/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative): Ministre des Finances v Jean-Claude Weidert and Élisabeth Paulus (Free movement of capital — Income tax — Special relief for expenditure incurred on the acquisition of shares — Benefit of the advantage restricted to the acquisition of shares in companies established in the Member State concerned)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-242/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative): Ministre des Finances v Jean-Claude Weidert and Élisabeth Paulus (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Income tax - Special relief for expenditure incurred on the acquisition of shares - Benefit of the advantage restricted to the acquisition of shares in companies established in the Member State concerned)
   (2004/C 228/26)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-242/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Ministre des Finances and Jean-Claude Weidert and Élisabeth Paulus — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 56(1) EC and Article 58(1)(a) EC preclude a legal provision of a Member State which denies the availability of income tax relief to natural persons for the acquisition of shares representing cash contributions in capital companies established in other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-317/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 July 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt (Sweden) lodged on 2 July 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Lundberg
   (Case C-317/12)
   2012/C 258/21
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Svea hovrätt

      Party to the main proceedings

   Daniel Lundberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the expression ‘non-commercial carriage of goods’ in Article 3(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as covering carriage of goods by a private individual as part of his hobby but which is in part financed by financial contributions (sponsorship) from external persons or undertakings?

               2.

               Is it relevant to the assessment of what constitutes ‘non-commercial carriage’:

                           (a)

                           that the driver makes the journey only for his own purposes?

                           (b)

                           that no payment is made for the carriage per se?

                           (c)

                           how large the financial contribution is and/or how large the financial contribution is in relation to the total cost of the hobby activity?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).


title: Case C-434/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2016 — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/11

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 4 August 2016 — Peter Nowak v Data Protection Commissioner
      (Case C-434/16)
      (2016/C 364/06)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Peter Nowak

         Defendant: Data Protection Commissioner

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is information recorded in/as answers given by a candidate during a professional examination capable of being personal data within the meaning of Directive 95/46/EC (1)?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is that all or some of such information may be personal data within the meaning of the Directive, what factors are relevant in determining whether in any given case such script is personal data, and what weight should be given to such factors?

         (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, p. 31


title: Case T-245/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — ViaSat v Commission

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/33

         Action brought on 24 April 2017 — ViaSat v Commission
   (Case T-245/17)
   (2017/C 213/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ViaSat, Inc. (Carlsbad, California, United States) (represented by: E. Righini, J. Ruiz Calzado, and A. Aresu, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               declare the failure to act of the Commission, pursuant to Article 265(3) TFEU;

               —

               in the alternative, annulling, in whole or in part, pursuant to Article 263(2) and (4) TFEU, the decision of the Commission contained in two letters sent to the applicant of 14 and 21 February 2017;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, raised in support of the action for failure to act, and alleging that the Commission failed to adopt a decision preventing a different use of the 2 GHz Band

                           —

                           The Commission has unlawfully failed to decide that the use of 2 GHz mobile satellite service spectrum on a primarily terrestrial-based network constitutes a fundamental change in the use of the 2 GHz Band that is harmonised and tendered at EU level through a Union selection procedure. The Commission should have taken responsibility and acted to adopt a decision to prevent NRAs from authorising Inmarsat to use the 2 GHz Band primarily for Air-To-Ground purposes, instead of primarily for a mobile satellite services (‘MSS’) satellite network in accordance with the EU’s MSS decisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law, in support of the action for failure to act, alleging that the Commission has failed to take action to prevent the fragmentation of the Internal Market

                           —

                           The Commission has a duty to exercise its powers in order to prevent the risk of fragmentation of the internal market for pan-European mobile satellite services that provide universal connectivity, which would be caused if certain national regulatory authorities (‘NRAs’) decide — on their own motions — to allow a specific company to use the 2 GHz Band for a new purpose. Indeed, the failure to exercise this duty in response to the applicant’s request to act Letter and the requests for guidance by NRAs have increased the risk that some Member States authorise use of the 2 GHz Band for new purposes.

               3.

               Third plea in law, raised alternatively in support of the action for annulment, alleging errors of interpretation.

                           —

                           The Commission’s decision contained in the above-mentioned letters of 14 and 21 February 2017 should be annulled because the Commission erred in interpreting i) the provisions defining its powers in the area of the MSS spectrum harmonisation; ii) the scope of its duty to ensure full compliance with the general principles of EU public procurement law applicable to this case; iii) its duties to prevent divergence among the decisions adopted by Member States and ensure that the Internal Market for pan-European mobile satellite services that provide universal connectivity is not fragmented, and iv) the scope of its duty of sincere cooperation to assist Member States in carrying out the tasks that flow from the Treaties.


title: Case T-6/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/47

      Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)
      (Case T-6/15)
      (2015/C 073/59)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyer, and F. Miazzetto, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 525

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 525 ‘ocean ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case C-438/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Directive 96/96/EC — National legislation — Restrictive conditions for access to the activity of vehicle inspection — Article 45 EC — Activities connected with the exercise of official authority — Road safety — Proportionality)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-438/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Directive 96/96/EC - National legislation - Restrictive conditions for access to the activity of vehicle inspection - Article 45 EC - Activities connected with the exercise of official authority - Road safety - Proportionality)
   2009/C 297/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and M. Teles Romão, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Portugal (represented by: L. Fernandes and A. Pereira de Miranda, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — Legislation imposing restrictions on the freedom of establishment of entities wishing to carry on vehicle inspection activity in Portugal

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing restrictions on the freedom of establishment of bodies of other Member States intending to carry on in Portugal the activity of vehicle inspection, namely, the making of the grant of authorisations subject to the public interest, the requirement of a minimum share capital of EUR 100 000, the limiting of the undertakings’ company objects and the imposition of incompatibility rules on members, managers and directors, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto Brognieri against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-174/96)

text:
No C 9/ 18            1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11 . 1 . 97
the basis of correct figures and, on the other hand, from               Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Ernesto
the fact that the Commission is using different figures to              Brognieri against the Commission of the European
calculate reference quantities for 1995 and 1996 .                                                 Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 74/96 )
(!) OJ No L 193 , 3 . 8 . 1996 , p . 15 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/33 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 28 October 1996 by Yannick
Chevalier-Delanoue against the Council of the European                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                 Union                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 20 September
                          ( Case T-l 72/96 )
                                                                        1996 by Ernesto Brognieri , residing at Barasso ( Italy ),
                             ( 97/C 9/32 )                              represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of
                (Language of the case: French)                          Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 28 October 1996 by Yannick Chevalier
Delanoue, residing at Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                      — annul the decision of 30 November 1995 concerning
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at                    the award of shiftwork allowance, in compliance with
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange .                                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             on 8 June 1995 in case T-583/93 ,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Council of 29 January 1996                  — order all sums due thereunder to be paid to the
    not to increase his annual leave by additional                           applicant in whole, both principal and default interest,
    travelling time,                                                         the amount of the principal being assessed, without
                                                                             prejudice, in particular to increases during the course
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     of the proceedings, at the sum of Lit 24 997 792, with
                                                                             interest to be assessed at the rate of 8 % per annum,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, an official at the Council whose place of                — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
origin was fixed as Washington, states that he is
challenging the decision whereby the appointing authority
refuses to add to the duration of the annual leave to                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which he is entitled travelling time calculated by taking
into account the needs and, in particular, the actual                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-583/93 ,
duration and conditions of the journey as well as the                   settled by judgment of 8 June 1995 , and in Case T-148/96,
period of adjustment/recovery resulting from the time                   still pending, challenges the decision of the appointing
difference .
                                                                        authority of 30 November 1995 awarding him the
                                                                        shiftwork allowance            from   1   March   1993     until
He considers that the travelling time of two days granted               31 December 1993 .
to him in reliance on the rules generally applied to
officials whose place of origin is outwith Europe covers
only the duration of the journey, but takes no account of               He complains in particular that the decision ignores the
the time to recover from the fatigue to which such a                    fact that the decision regularizing his position was not
journey gives rise. In the view of the applicant, this means            taken until 28 November 1995 and that the operative part
that the appointing authority treats officials whose place              of the said judgment of 8 June 1995 required the payment
of origin is situated outwith Europe differently from those             of sums intended to cover the period between 1 March
whose place of origin is situated within Europe and who                 1993 and the date on which the decision regularizing his
are entitled, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex V to                position was adopted . That date cannot refer to the date
the Staff Regulations, to an increase of their holiday in               of a decision nearly two years before the judgment.
order to take account of the strain of the journey
notwithstanding the fact that they are not faced with the
problem of recovering from the effects of jet-lag. He                   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement
concludes that the contested decision was adopted in                    of Articles 26 and 56a of the Staff Regulations, and
breach of the principle of equal treatment and non                     Articles 176 and 179 of the Treaty of Rome, and
discrimination as well as of Article 7 ( 5 ) of Annex V to              infringement of the principle of res judicata.
the Staff Regulations .


title: Case T-60/13: Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper/OHIM — Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement (AC)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/23

         Action brought on 6 February 2013 — Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper/OHIM — Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement (AC)
   (Case T-60/13)
   2013/C 101/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reiner Appelrath-Cüpper Nachf. GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ann Christine Lizenzmanagement GmbH & Co. KG (Braunschweig, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Forth Board of Appeal of 28 November 2012 (R 108/2012-4) insofar as the appeal was upheld and the CTM applied for was rejected;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the cost of the proceedings;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘AC’, for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 070 021

      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 in opposition: German trademarks No 30 666 076 and No 30 666 074 and International trade mark registration No 948 259 designating several Member States of the European Union of the figurative mark ‘AC ANNE CHRISTINE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35; Community trade mark No 6 904 783, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14 and 25; Community trademark No 6 905 541 for goods in classes 3, 14 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partly and annulled the contested decision with respect goods and services of classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35, rejected the CTM applied for these goods and services and rejected the appeal for the remainder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-563/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/21

         Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-563/12)
   2013/C 55/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicant is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and there is no valid legal basis for its designation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)


title: Case C-615/12 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission (Appeal — Action for damages — Grants made for projects financed by the ‘Culture 2000’ programme — Claims for payment of various sums — Content of the application — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission
   (Case C-615/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Grants made for projects financed by the ‘Culture 2000’ programme - Claims for payment of various sums - Content of the application - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 377/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and D. Roussanov, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action against the Commission, seeking payment of, first, the sum of EUR 38 585,42 together with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1 January 2001 and the sum of EUR 27 618,91 together with interest at the rate of 12 % from 1 March 2003 and, second, of the sum of EUR 26 459,38 excluding VAT in respect of the fees of lawyers instructed during the pre-litigation procedure — Infringement of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater, is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case F-123/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Bracke v Commission (Officials — Competitions — Internal competition — Eligibility conditions — Competition notice — Seniority requirement — Temporary staff — Article 27 of the Staff Regulations — Principle of sound administration — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/25

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Bracke v Commission
   (Case F-123/05) (1)

   (Officials - Competitions - Internal competition - Eligibility conditions - Competition notice - Seniority requirement - Temporary staff - Article 27 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of sound administration - Principle of non-discrimination)
   (2007/C 129/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Marc Bracke (Etterbeeck, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bruwier, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios)
   Re:
   First, the inapplicability, under article 241 EC, of point III.1 of the notice of competition COM/PC/04 on account of infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, and, second, annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to recruit the applicant, and of the measures taken in consequence of that decision, on the grounds that it infringes Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of sound administration, the principle of independence of the selection board, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and that it is founded on an illegal provision of the notice.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 53.


C 118/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-368/99 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-343/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/82)                                                       (2001/C 118/85)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-368/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-343/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: La Che-          European Communities v France.
mise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-378/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/83)                                                       (2001/C 118/86)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 23 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-378/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/84)                                                       (2001/C 118/87)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 25 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/00: (reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-335/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Stratford): F. Harding v         European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Skandia Asset Management Ltd.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case T-480/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents taken into consideration in the context of a financial audit on the performance of certain research contracts concluded during the course of the sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination — Overriding public interest)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
   (Case T-480/11) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents taken into consideration in the context of a financial audit on the performance of certain research contracts concluded during the course of the sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Overriding public interest))
   (2015/C 213/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel); and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: initially D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, then D. Grisay and C. Hartman, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially P. Costa de Oliveira and C. ten Dam, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 30 June 2011 refusing Technion — Israel Institute of Technology access to documents taken into consideration in the context of a financial audit on the performance of certain research contracts concluded during the course of the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006).

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd are ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 340, p. 27.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April 1996 in the case of Laboratoires Valda v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (FIRS) (Case C-202/96)

text:
No C 233/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
certain sectors is not enough to bring the infringement to an             Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
end, given that the wording of Article 213-1 , which subsists              1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
in the French Code du Travail , simply prohibits night                     1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires de
working for women in industry as a whole .                                Thérapeutique Moderne ( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et
                                                                          de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the
C ) OJ No L 39 , 1976 , p . 40 .                                          following question :
( 2 ) Case C-158/91 Levy [ 1993J ECR 1-4300 .
( 3 ) In response to the letter giving formal notice and the reasoned     Having regard to their composition, presentation and
      opinion, the French Government relied on a communication            purpose, do the products 'Alvityl 50 Dragées ' and
      published on 13 December 1993 in the Official Journal of the
      French Republic, p . 4517 et seq .
                                                                          'Strongenol 20 Ampoules' fall within the scope of
                                                                          subheading 21 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1010/86 of
                                                                          25 March 1986 on the classification of goods or Chapter 30
                                                                          of the Common Customs Tariff ( 1 ) ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht                   t 1 ) OJ No L 94, 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Kôln by order of that court of 18 April 1996 in the
interlocutory proceedings between Metronome Musik
            GmbH and Music Point Hokamp GmbH
                           ( Case C-200/96 )
                             ( 96/C 233/09 )                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                          Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    1996       in  the  case    of Laboratoires    Valda   v.   Fonds
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht Kôln                  d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre
( Regional Court, Cologne ) of 18 April 1 996, which was                                                   ( FIRS )
received at the Court Registry on 13 June 1996 , for a                                              ( Case C-202/96 )
preliminary ruling in the interlocutory proceedings between
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp                                                           ( 96/C 233/11 )
GmbH on the following question :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Is the introduction of an exclusive rental right, contrary to             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
the principle of the exhaustion of distribution rights, by                Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 3 April
Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of                        1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
19 November 1992 on rental rights and lending rights and                  1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Laboratoires
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of                    Valda v . Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du
intellectual property ( 1 ) compatible with Community law, in             Marché du Sucre ( FIRS ) on the following questions :
particular Community fundamental rights ?
                                                                         — May Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 717/85 of
n OJ No L 346 , 1992 , p . 61 .                                                 19 March 1985 on the classification of goods within
                                                                                subheading 17.04 D I of the common customs tariff ( 1 )
                                                                                be interpreted as referring to goods whose composition
                                                                                ( percentage by weight) is different from that indicated in
                                                                                Article 1 of that Regulation ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif, Paris, by judgment of that court of 3 April               — If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must
1996 in the case of Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne                       Chapter 30.04 of the customs nomenclature, which
( LTM ) v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du                         refers to medicaments, be interpreted as including a
                      Marché du Sucre ( FIRS )                                  product which contains sugar but above all active
                          ( Case C-201 /96 )                                    flavouring agents having medicinal properties in such a
                             ( 96/C 233/ 10 )                                   proportion that it is used essentially for therapeutic and
                                                                                prophylactic purposes ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal                          (') OJ No L 78 , 21 . 3 . 1985 , p . 13 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs — Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples — Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an infringement of the right to a second opinion)

text:
C 135/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
      use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual                  the light of all the factual and legal evidence available to it,
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/               whether or not the results of analyses of samples of a
      391/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of                        manufacturer’s products are to be admitted as evidence that the
      5 December 1995;                                                             manufacturer has infringed a Member State’s national rules on
                                                                                foodstuffs where the manufacturer has been unable to exercise
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                his right to a second opinion under the second subparagraph of
                                                                                Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397. In that regard, the national
                                                                                court must verify that the national rules on the taking of
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
                                                                                evidence applicable to such an action are not less favourable
                                                                                than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of
                                                                                equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible
                                                                                or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by
                                                                                Community law (the principle of effectiveness). In addition, the
                                                                                national court must consider whether such evidence must be
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           excluded in order to avoid measures incompatible with com-
                                                                                pliance with fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair
                                                                                hearing before a tribunal as laid down in Article 6(1) of the
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
                                                                                Fundamental Freedoms.
                            of 10 April 2003
in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
     the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (1)
(Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs —
Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples
— Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility
of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an
         infringement of the right to a second opinion)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 135/08)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                     (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  of 10 April 2003
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
In Case C-276/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Joachim Steffensen, on the interpretation of the second                      Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the pre-
subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC                                             scribed period)
of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989
L 186, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                                (2003/C 135/09)
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                                         (Language of the case: French)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive                               in the European Court Reports)
      89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of
      foodstuffs is to be construed as meaning that a manufacturer
      may rely on a right to a second opinion based on that article
      against the competent authorities of a Member State where              In Case C-114/02, Commission of the European Communities
      those authorities claim that his products fail to meet the             (Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
      standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs on the           and E. Puisais): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      basis of an analysis of samples of those products taken from           adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      retail outlets.                                                        necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
2.    It is for the national court before which an action such as that       the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
      at issue in the main proceedings has been brought to assess, in        L 123, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its


title: Case T-130/09: Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/40

         Action brought on 2 April 2009 — Eliza v OHIM — Went Computing Consultancy Group (eliza)
   (Case T-130/09)
   2009/C 153/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Eliza Corporation (Beverly, United States) (represented by: R. Köbbing, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Went Computing Consultancy Group BV (Utrecht, The Netherlands)

      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 2 February 2009 in case R 1244/2008-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “eliza”, for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42

      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 of the word mark “ELISE” for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its holding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned on the part of the relevant public

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


title: Case T-262/04: Action brought on 25 June 2004 by BIC S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/22

         Action brought on 25 June 2004 by BIC S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-262/04)
   (2004/C 251/40)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 June 2004 by BIC S.A., established in Clichy (France), represented by Michel-Paul Escande, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 April 2004 (Case R 468/2003-4), in so far as it decided that Community trade mark application No 1 738 392 should be refused on the grounds laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94, since BIC has shown that the conditions for the application of that article were not satisfied in the present case;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark applied for:

               Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter.

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Class 34 (smoker's articles, lighters) — application No 1 738 392.

               Decision contested before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal to register by the examiner.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant has shown that the shape of the lighter in respect of which the application for registration as a Community trade mark was made is widely recognised by consumers as belonging to it.
               The applicant has established that the shape of the BIC lighter had acquired a distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-313/17: Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/50

         Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
   (Case T-313/17)
   (2017/C 231/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 14 886 097

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 1526/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Removal from the register of C-179/96

text:
8 . 2 . 97           I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 40/ 15
from the register of Case C-134/96 : Commission of the                removal from the register of Case C-l 79/96 : Commission
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
                                                                      Luxembourg.
(') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-l 52/96 (')                           Removal from the register of C-243/96 f 1 )
                             97/C 40/35 )                                                         ( 97/C 40/37 )
                                                                      By order of 19 November 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 12 September 1996 the President of the Court              of Justice of the Communities ordered the removal from
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                the register of Case C-243/96 : Commission of the
removal from the register of Case C-l 52/96 : Commission              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg .                                                          (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-265/96 f 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/38 )
            Removal from the register of C-l 79/96 (')                By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
                             97/C 40/36 )                             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case C-265/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                      of 11 December 1996                             Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
                                                                      Marie-Adelaide v. European Community, represented by 1 .
in Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of               Council of the European Union (Agents : Jean-Paul Jacque,
the European Union and Commission of the European                     Arthur Brautigam , Jürgen Huber and Anna Lo Monaco )
                          Communities C )                             and 2 . Commission of the European Communities
 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                       ( Agents : Peter Gilsdorf and Ulrich Wölker ), supported by
           Import arrangements — Action for damages)                  the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Gautier
                                                                       Mignot) and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                            ( 97/C 40/39 )                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially S. Lucinda Hudson,
                                                                       then Lindsey Nicoll ) — application for an order requiring
                 (Language of the case: German)                        the European Community, represented by the Council and
                                                                       the Commission , to pay compensation for damage alleged
                                                                       to have been incurred as a result of the adoption of
 In Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG, established at Bremen                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
 ( Germany), Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co .                  1993 on the common organization of the market in
 GmbH, established at Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-                     bananas ( OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Court
 Companie GmbH, established at Hamburg ( Germany ),                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
 Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft mbH & Co . KG,                     K. Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P.
 established at Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH ,                      Lindh , J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 established at Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport                    Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 , in
 Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established at Hamburg and                which it :
 Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established at Hamburg,
 represented by Erik A. Undritz and Gerrit Schohe,                      1 . dismisses the application;


title: Case C-215/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Nova Kreditna banka Maribor, d.d. v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Nova Kreditna banka Maribor, d.d. v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-215/17)
   (2017/C 213/28)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Nova Kreditna banka Maribor, d.d.

      Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of an approach based on minimum harmonisation, must Article 1(2)(c), third indent, of Directive 2003/98, as amended by Directive 2013/37 (consolidated version), be interpreted as meaning that national legislation may permit unrestricted (absolute) access to all information in copyright and consultancy contracts, even when the information is categorised as a business secret, and the legislation at issue stipulates this solely in relation to institutions under dominant State influence, but not also for other entities subject to the obligation; and is the interpretation also influenced by Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 in relation to the provisions on the disclosure of information, particularly in the sense that access to public sector information within the meaning of Directive 2003/98 may not be more extensive than is provided for by the uniform rules on the disclosure of information laid down by the regulation?

               2.

               Must Regulation No 575/2013, viewed in terms of the rules on disclosure of information on the commercial activity of banks, and more specifically Articles 446 and 432(2) in Part Eight thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the latter provisions preclude legislation of a Member State which compels a bank that is, or was, under the dominant influence of a public-law entity, to disclose information on contracts provided for consultancy and legal services and services of an intellectual nature, and more specifically information concerning the type of transaction concluded, the contractual partner (in the case of a legal person: the corporate or business name, registered office and business address), the value of the contract, the amount of the individual payments for the abovementioned services, the date on which the contract was concluded, the duration of the business relationship and similar information contained in the annexes to the contract — all information that came into existence during the period of dominant influence — without providing for any exception to that requirement, and with no possibility of balancing the public interest in accessing the data against the bank’s interest in safeguarding its business secrets, in circumstances in which there are no cross-border elements?


title: Case C-277/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH

text:
12.10.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/3
      (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-       3.     If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:
            tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                How, and by reference to what parameters, is the
            of members of the health-care professions or of
            sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring              authorised toll for a single journey along the whole
            to health-care activities?                                          motorway to be calculated in each individual case?
                                                                         4.     Only if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC                          the affirmative and are accompanied, as requested in
      preclude a national provision which, on the placing into                  question 3, by an explanation of the method of calcu-
      circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-                  lation to be employed:
      mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
      affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the                     Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/94
      competent federal minister, whereby a condition of                        Parliament v Council (3), in which it was held that the
      authorisation is that the health-related information is                   effects of Directive 93/89/EEC, which was annulled by
      consistent with protecting the consumer from being                        that judgment, were to be preserved until the Council had
      misled?                                                                   adopted a new directive, to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that the effects are to be preserved until the Member
                                                                                States have transposed the new directive or, as the case
( 1) OJ L 33, p. 1.                                                             may be, until the time-limit for transposition has expired?
                                                                         5.     Only if the answer to question 4 is in the negative:
                                                                                In respect of the period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July
                                                                                2000, are the Member States under an obligation to have
                                                                                regard to the new directive, that is to say, does it have
                                                                                advance effects which must be observed?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that                  (1 ) OJ L 279 [1993], p. 32.
Court of 25 June 2002 in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V.               (2 ) OJ L 187 [1999], p. 42.
                                                                         (3 ) ECR I-1827 [1995].
                    against Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-257/02)
                         (2002/C 247/05)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz
                                                                         Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July
                                                                         2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                                               mbH
(Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 25 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 15 July 2002, for a                                              (Case C-277/02)
preliminary ruling in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V. against
Republic of Austria on the following questions:                                                    (2002/C 247/06)
1.    Are Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC ( 1) and
      Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC ( 2) intended         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      to confer on all transport undertakings the right, in return       European Communities by order of the Rheinland-Pfalz Ober-
      for payment of a road user charge which complies with              verwaltungsgericht (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrat-
      those directives and is thus reasonable, to conduct                ive Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
      journeys on stretches of motorway for which a toll is              29 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      levied on vehicles with more than three axles used for the         EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-
      commercial carriage of goods?                                      Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH on the following questions:
2.    If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:                 1.     Under the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
      Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC and                        supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
      Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC have direct                  into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30,
      effect according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,                 p. 1), can an objection to the shipment of waste for
      such that, if the directives have not been transposed, or                 recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
      have been transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they                  recovery contravenes the requirement arising from the
      may be relied on in calculating a toll that complies with                 first paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/
      the directives for vehicles with more than three axles used               EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 74) for
      for the commercial carriage of goods along the whole of                   waste to be recovered in a manner which is compatible
      the Austrian Brenner motorway?                                            with health and environmental imperatives?
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
2.     If so, can such an objection be raised not only by the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       authority of destination but also by the authority of               Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June
       dispatch?                                                           2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di
                                                                                Treviso
3.     If so, is the authority of dispatch entitled to base its
       assessment of whether the planned recovery of the waste
       at the place of destination is compatible with health and
       environmental imperatives on the standards applicable in
       the State of dispatch even where they are higher than the                                   (Case C-286/02)
       standards applicable in the State of destination?
4.     Under the second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation
       No 259/93, can an objection to the shipment of waste                                        (2002/C 247/08)
       for recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
       recovery contravenes national laws and regulations relat-
       ing to environmental protection, public order, public
       safety or health protection?
5.     If so, can the authority of dispatch raise such an objection
       on the ground that the recovery contravenes national
       laws and regulations in force at the place of dispatch?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Treviso,
                                                                           Prima Sezione (District Court, Treviso, First Chamber) of
                                                                           26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
                                                                           2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l.
                                                                           against Prefettura di Treviso on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002                        1.   Are the first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision
in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land                           2000/766 ( 1) and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision
                       Nordrhein-Westfalen                                      2001/9 ( 2), read together with the other Community rules
                                                                                on which those provisions are based, to be interpreted as
                          (Case C-285/02)                                       meaning that the accidental presence of an unforeseen or
                                                                                prohibited substance in fish flour used in the production
                                                                                of feed-stuffs for animals other than ruminants may be
                          (2002/C 247/07)                                       considered both legally and materially acceptable and
                                                                                that, accordingly, traders are allowed a reasonable margin
                                                                                of error?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Minden (Administrative Court, Minden) of 26 July 2002,                     2.   In the affirmative, in the light of the principle of
received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2002, for a                          proportionality and the principle of precaution, and in
preliminary ruling in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg                     consideration of the Community provisions applicable in
against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:                     the domains in which reference is made to accidental
                                                                                contamination of food-industry products and indications
                                                                                are given of relevant margins of error, does an accidental
Is it compatible with Article 141 EC in conjunction with                        contamination of 0.1 %, and in any case of not more
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 ( 1) on the                    than 0,5 %, of fragments of mammalian bone in fish flour
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                      intended for the production of feed-stuffs for animals
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and                       other than ruminants warrant the adoption of a draconian
women that men and women teachers, part-time as well as                         sanction such as the complete destruction of that fish
full-time, who are officials in the Land North-Rhine Westphalia                 flour?
are not granted remuneration for excess hours worked if that
additional work does not exceed three teaching periods in the
calendar month?
                                                                           3.   Does the exclusion of any margin of error in relation to
                                                                                the presence of the substances mentioned in the preceding
( 1) OJ L 45, p. 19.
                                                                                questions amount to the introduction of a technical
                                                                                standard within the meaning of Directive 83/189 ( 3) (as
                                                                                amended) which would have to be notified in advance to
                                                                                the European Commission?


title: Case C-85/06: Action brought on  10 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/13

         Action brought on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-85/06)
   (2006/C 74/27)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 14 February 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 41 of 14.2.2003, p. 26.


title: Case T-116/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11, Lebedef v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/19

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11, Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-116/13 P)
   2013/C 147/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the CST of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11 Lebedef v Commission seeking the annulment of the applicant’s evaluation report for the period 1.1. 2008 — 31.12.2008 and, more specifically, the part of the report drafted by EUROSTAT for the same period;

               —

               grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the CST held that the appellant was not designated to participate in consultations and that his participation in those consultations was covered by the half time discharge from duties for trade union purposes which he enjoyed (paragraphs 41 to 45 of the order under appeal).

               2.

               Second plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST found that the special procedure for the assessment of staff representatives covers all trade union activities and incorrectly interpreted the reasons for which the appellant did not work for the department to which he had been assigned and held that the appellant could no longer challenge the competence of the assessors (points 50 and 51 of the order under appeal).

               3.

               Third plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST based its decision on incorrect findings concerning, in particular, the powers of the assessors to evaluate the appellant solely on the basis of his work for the department to which he was assigned, and the fact that he relied on the half time discharge from the performance of his duties for trade union purposes in order to justify the fact that he did not work for the service to which he was assigned (paragraphs 59 and 60 of the order under appeal).

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging an error of law in that the CST concluded that the facts in the present case are distinguishable from those that gave rise to the judgment in Case F-36/07 Lebedef v Commission ECR Staff Cases I-A-1-143 and II-A-1-759 and that performance level IV could legitimately be attributed to the appellant (paragraphs 69 to 70 of the order under appeal).


title: Case F-96/12: Action brought on 11 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/23

         Action brought on 11 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-96/12)
   2012/C 343/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/AD/207/11 upholding the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil certain specific criteria for admission to that competition and a claim for damages.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the selection board of EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD5) and EPSO/AD/207/11 (AD 7) dated 1 June 2012 upholding the decision of 9 February 2012 not to place the applicant on the reserve list of the competition on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil certain specific criteria for admission;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of the selection board of EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD5) and EPSO/AD/207/l1 (AD 7) dated 9 February 2012;

               —

               grant the applicant the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally EUR 3 000 by way of non-pecuniary damages;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.