title: Order of the Court of 11 November 2003 in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
C 59/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.3.2004
5.    Orders Ciments français SA and the Commission of the                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      European Communities to bear their own costs in Case C-211/
      00 P.                                                                  2.    Orders the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV,
                                                                                Bayer AG and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical
                                                                                Industries’ Associations to bear their own costs in relation to
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.08.2000.                                                        Case C-2/01 P;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs in relation to Case C-3/01 P;
                                                                             4.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001.
                         of 6 January 2004
in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband
der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV against Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Appeals — Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of
agreement between undertakings — Proof of the existence of                                          of 11 November 2003
    an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)
                                                                                in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (1)
                          (2004/C 59/02)
                                                                             (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under
                   (Language of the case: German)                            Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
                                                                             Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive
                                                                             dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmis-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                sible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/03)
In Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband der
Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in Mülheim an der                                         (Language of the case: French)
Ruhr (Germany), (Agnets: U. Zinsmeister and W.A. Rehmann),
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies                                            in the European Court Reports)
(EAEPC), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Agents: M. Epping
and M. Lienemeyer), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Wiedner and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund),                  In Case C-488/01 P, Jean-Claude Martinez, a member of
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      the European Parliament, residing in Montpellier (France),
Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse), and by European                         represented by F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel,
Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC): two                    avocats: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended                         Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
Composition) of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 Bayer v                      and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001]
Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, seeking to have that judg-                    ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Bayer            parties to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents:
AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), (Agent: J. Sedemund)                G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück), defendant at first
with an address for service in Luxembourg, and European                      instance, Charles de Gaulle, a member of the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, estab-                Parliament, residing in Paris (France), applicant at first instance,
lished in Geneva (Switzerland), (Agent: A. Woodgate), the                    the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,                          C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha
C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of                    Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             order on 11 November 2003, the operative part of which is as
on 6 January 2004, in which it:                                              follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 59/3
1.   The appeal is dismissed.                                            3.     Must Article 1(2) of Decision 94/381/EC, read as far as
                                                                                necessary in conjunction with the provisions of Article 17
2.   Mr Martinez is ordered to pay the costs of the present                     of Directive 90/425/EEC and Article 17 of Directive 89/
     proceedings.                                                               662/EEC, be interpreted as giving rise to an obligation for
                                                                                the Commission or the Council to grant an authorisation
3.   Mr Martinez is also ordered to pay the Parliament’s costs in               as referred to therein if the system which the requesting
     connection with the application for interim measures in Case               Member State applies or intends to apply is in fact suitable
     C-488/01 P-R.                                                              for distinguishing between protein from ruminant and
                                                                                non-ruminant species?
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                 4.     To what extent does the answer to Question 3 entail a
                                                                                restriction of the right, or of the State’s obligation referred
                                                                                to in Question 1, to challenge a failure to grant an
                                                                                authorisation such as that at issue in this case under
                                                                                Article 175 of the EC Treaty (Article 232 EC), or to
                                                                                challenge a refusal to grant such an authorisation under
                                                                                Article 173 of the EC Treaty (Article 230 EC)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         (Question 3 is relevant whether the question referred to
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003                           in Question 1 must be answered according to Netherlands
in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                        national law or whether that answer must be determined
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against                           according to Community law, in the latter case unless the
1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate                                answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative. Question 4 is
Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschap-                          relevant only in the light of an answer to Question 2(b).)
                              pij BV
                         (Case C-511/03)
                          (2004/C 59/04)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                          Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Nederlanden of 5 December 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                         (Case C-515/03)
case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding
Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten                                             (2004/C 59/05)
Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV on the following questions:
1.   Must the question whether, in a case such as this, the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State has an obligation towards a citizen who has an                European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-
     interest in it, such as Ten Kate, to make use of the legal          burg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 12 November 2003, received
     remedies available to it under Article 175 of the EC                at the Court Registry on 9 December 2003, for a preliminary
     Treaty (Article 232 EC) or Article 173 of the EC Treaty             ruling in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
     (Article 230 EC) and, in the event of failure to comply             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:
     with such an obligation, to pay compensation for the
     damage sustained as a consequence by the citizen con-
     cerned, be answered by reference to rules of Netherlands            Is Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) as amended
     national law or by reference to rules of Community law?             by Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 (2) to be interpreted as
                                                                         meaning that a product is considered to have been imported
2.   If the question referred to in Question 1 must be answered          if, after its release for free circulation in a non-member country,
     wholly or partly by reference to rules of Community law:            it undergoes substantial processing or working within the
                                                                         meaning of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 (3) and
     (a)   Are there circumstances in which Community law                then is brought back into the Community upon drawback and
           can entail an obligation and liability as referred to in      payment of the normal import duties?
           that question?
     (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,           (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 134, p. 14.
           which rules of Community law must be used as the
                                                                         (3) OJ L 302, p. 1.
           criterion when answering the question referred to
           in Question 1 in a specific case such as this?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-316/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Authorisation for the placing of plant protection and biocidal products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC — Article 8 — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 16 — Power of Member States during the transitional period)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 November 2005
   in Case C-316/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (1)

   (Authorisation for the placing of plant protection and biocidal products on the market - Directive 91/414/EEC - Article 8 - Directive 98/8/EC - Article 16 - Power of Member States during the transitional period)
   (2006/C 10/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-316/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 22 July 2004, received at the Court on 26 July 2004, in the proceedings between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen, in the presence of 3M Nederland BV and Others — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as meaning that it does not constitute a 'standstill' obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 98/8, require that during the transitional period prescribed in Article 16(1) of that directive the Member States refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive.

               2.

               Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market is to be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State authorises the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, it is not required to comply with the provisions of Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.

               3.

               Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 has the same meaning as Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414.

               4.

               It is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation provided for in Article 25d(2) of the Law on pesticides of 1962 (Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet) corresponds to all the characteristics of a 'review' within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414.

               5.

               Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 must be interpreted as meaning that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data prior to a review.

               6.

               There is no need to answer Question 1.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Case T-193/11: Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire — Actions for annulment — Inaction by the applicant — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/23

         Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council
   (Case T-193/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Actions for annulment - Inaction by the applicant - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 340/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Jacques André Monoko Daligou (Abidjan), Bruno Walé Ekpo (Abidjan), Félix Tano Kouakou (Abidjan), Hortense Sess (Abidjan) and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah (Abidjan) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, Agents)

      Re:

   Partial annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta, Jacques André Monoko Daligou, Bruno Walé Ekpo, Félix Tano Kouakou, Hortense Sess and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah are ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to rule on the applications made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-85/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Alfa Acciai v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Misuse of powers — Rights of the defence — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — Fixing of the starting amount — Extenuating circumstances — Duration of the administrative procedure)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Alfa Acciai v Commission
   (Case T-85/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Misuse of powers - Rights of the defence - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Fixing of the starting amount - Extenuating circumstances - Duration of the administrative procedure))
   (2015/C 034/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfa Acciai SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard, S. Amoruso and L. Vitolo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 65 CS and imposes upon it a fine of EUR 7,175 million, or in the alternative application for a reduction in the amount of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alfa Acciai SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-383/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3 — Recovery of Community aid — Administrative penalty — Administrative measures — Limitation period)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International
   (Case C-383/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3 - Recovery of Community aid - Administrative penalty - Administrative measures - Limitation period))
   (2015/C 354/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Defendant: Société Sodiaal International

      Operative part of the judgment

   The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it lays down is applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which lead to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 thereof but also to proceedings which lead to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-58/02: Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market — A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft

text:
1.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 131/19
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie Jules                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Simon & Cie against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                          —     annul the contested decision no. R0612/1999-2,
                          (Case T-50/02)
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 131/36)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 February 2002 by Brasserie
Jules Simon & Cie, established at Wiltz (Luxembourg), rep-                Applicant for the Com-        Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood (also
resented by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jerry Mosar, lawyers.                munity trade mark:            trading as Kenwood Corporation)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Community trade           The word mark ‘DualMags’ for
                                                                          mark concerned:               goods in classes 9, 37 and 38.
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 5 Decem-
      ber 2001 in Case COMP/37800/F3 — Brasseries Luxem-                  Proprietor of the right to    Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft
      bourgeoises, in so far as it finds that the applicant has           the trade mark or sign
      infringed Article 81(1) of the Treaty;                              asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                          sition in the opposition
—     in any event, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it       proceedings:
      imposes a fine on the applicant, or alternatively reduce
      that fine substantially;
                                                                          Trade mark or sign            The national German word mark
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              asserted by way of oppo-      ‘Dual’ for certain goods in class 9.
                                                                          sition in the opposition
                                                                          proceedings:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         Partial rejection of the Com-
                                                                          sition Division:              munity trade mark application
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put                                            because of likelihood of confusion
forward in Case T-49/02.                                                                                for certain goods in class 9.
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal by the
                                                                          Appeal:                       applicant for the Community tra-
                                                                                de mark.
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by Kabushiki Kaisha
Kenwood against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       Grounds of claim:             Violation of Article 8.1 (b) of
                         Internal Market                                                                Council Regulation 40/94 (1) since
                                                                                there is no risk of confusion.
                                                                                According to the applicant, the
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of                                                  word ‘dual’ should be considered
       Appeal was Karstadt Quelle Aktiengesellschaft                                                    as a descriptive complement to the
                                                                                distinctive trade mark ‘Mags’. The
                          (Case T-58/02)                                                                opposing mark should further be
                                                                                considered as a weak trade mark
                         (2002/C 131/37)                                                                due to its descriptive nature and
                                                                                the word ‘dual’ is a common
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                      element in several trade marks.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).
European Communities on 25 February 2002 by Kabushiki
Kaisha Kenwood, represented by Mr Emiliano Garayar Gutiér-
rez, Mr Joaquı́n Garcı́a-Romanillos Valverde and Ms Anna
Garcı́a Castillo of Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, Brussels (Belgium).


title: Case C-286/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-286/05)
   (2005/C 229/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Reinhold Haug and Land Baden-Württemberg on the following question:

               1.

               Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 apply even if in the context of an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2) of that Regulation only the reimbursement of wrongly granted aid is sought (Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 (1) and, because of a provision of Community law that later comes into force, the amount of wrongly granted aid to be reimbursed would be lower than under the provisions of Community law in force at the time that the irregularity was committed?
               If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

               2.

               Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 also apply with regard to the rules governing payment of interest if no administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that Regulation are imposed on the farmer concerned and the latter is required only to repay the wrongly granted aid within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that Regulation?

      (1)  OJ L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-461/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs — Earlier EU, national and international figurative marks G — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs)
   (Case T-461/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs - Earlier EU, national and international figurative marks G - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 428/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 2049/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Guccio Gucci and Guess? IP Holder.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case F-37/10: Action brought on 27 may 2010 — Stratakis/Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/41

         Action brought on 27 may 2010 — Stratakis/Commission
   (Case F-37/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofoklis Stratakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: F. Sigalas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/129/08 not to include the name of the applicant on the reserve list published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of July 30, 2009, of the selection board for open competition EPSO/AD/129/08 not to include his name on the reserve list published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-35/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze (Eighth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 5 — Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Tax paid in error — Arrangements for reimbursement)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze
   (Case C-35/05) (1)

   (Eighth VAT Directive - Articles 2 and 5 - Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Tax paid in error - Arrangements for reimbursement)
   (2007/C 95/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH

      Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Tax paid when not due as a result of an incorrect invoice.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Articles 2 and 5 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, must be interpreted as meaning that value added tax that is not due and has been invoiced in error to the beneficiary of the services and paid to the tax authorities of the Member State where those services were supplied, is not refundable under those provisions.

               2)

               Except in the cases expressly provided for in Article 21(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December, only the supplier must be considered to be liable for payment of value added tax for the purposes of the tax authorities of the Member State where the services were supplied.

               3)

                           —

                           The principles of neutrality, effectiveness and non-discrimination do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which only the supplier may seek reimbursement of the sums unduly paid as value added tax to the tax authorities and the recipient of the services may bring a civil law action against that supplier for recovery of the sums paid but not due. However, where reimbursement of the value added tax would become impossible or excessively difficult, the Member States must provide for the instruments necessary to enable that recipient to recover the unduly invoiced tax in order to respect the principle of effectiveness.

                           —

                           This ruling shall not be affected by national legislation on direct taxation.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-161/15: Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/68

         Action brought on 1 April 2015 — Brinkmann (Steel Trading) a.o. v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-161/15)
   (2015/C 294/83)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Dalmar investments Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands); Darlows Consultants Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas); Forestborne Ltd (Tortola); International Corporate Management Company SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Kraxis Investments Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus); Magnamox Management Ltd (Nicosia); Megamatic Technologies Ltd (Nicosia); Windward Yachting Ltd (Sliema, Malta); Chupit Ltd (Nicosia); Coburg Investments (Overseas) Ltd (Nicosia); First Trade International Ltd (Tortola); Fitinvest Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus); Halman Consultants (Overseas) Ltd (Tortola); Limtan Investments Ltd (Lanarca, Cyprus); Minnesota Trading Ltd (Nicosia); Protoconsult Ltd (Nicosia); Transcoal Trading Ltd (Nicosia); and Veft Management Ltd (Nicosia) (represented by: R. Nowinski, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Union to make good the damage suffered by the Applicants as a result of the adoption and application of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality in the amounts as stated in the application or such amount as the Court finds to be due to the Applicants;

               —

               order the European Union to legal costs incurred in the bringing of this Application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they discriminated against Cyprus, and thereby, directly discriminated against depositors in Cyprus banks;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they violated the depositors’ right to protection of property as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights; and

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 5(4) of the Treaty of the European Union in that the Commission and the ECB acted unlawfully in that they breached the principle of proportionality in drawing up the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality negotiated by the Commission and the ECB under the authority of the European Stability Mechanism.


title: Case T-230/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 — Finland v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee section — System of control of area aid in certain regions — Expenditure excluded from Community financing)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 — Finland v Commission
   (Case T-230/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee section - System of control of area aid in certain regions - Expenditure excluded from Community financing)
   (2007/C 247/38)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Finland (represented: initially by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and T. Pynnä and subsequently by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and E. Bygglin, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31) in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Finland in connection with area aid in certain regions, because of the insufficiency of the system of control applied.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 29.5.2004 (formerly Case C-162/04).


title: Case C-151/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Framework for Community action in the field of water policy — Transposition of Articles 4(8), 7(2), 10(1) and (2) of and sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60 — Intracommunal and intercommunal river basins — Article 149(3) of the Spanish Constitution — Supplementing clause)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-151/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for Community action in the field of water policy - Transposition of Articles 4(8), 7(2), 10(1) and (2) of and sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60 - Intracommunal and intercommunal river basins - Article 149(3) of the Spanish Constitution - Supplementing clause)
   2013/C 367/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, E. Manhaeve and B. Simon, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2), and Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V, of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Environmental objectives — Waters used for the abstraction of drinking water — Surface water — Intracommunal river basins

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and section 1.3 and subsection 1.4.1(i) to (iii) of Annex V thereto, to which Article 8(2) of that directive refers, in respect of the intracommunal river basins outside Catalonia, and Articles 7(2) and 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/60 in respect of the intracommunal river basins in Catalonia, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case C-414/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2013 by Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2013 in Case T-530/10 Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/3

         Appeal brought on 22 July 2013 by Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 May 2013 in Case T-530/10 Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-414/13 P)
   2013/C 298/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: O. Spuhler, M. Geitz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Anna Klusmeier

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               I.

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 in Case T-530/10 and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2010 in Case R 363/2008-4;

               II.

               In the alternative,
               set aside the judgment referred to in point I. above and refer the matter back to the General Court;

               III.

               Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal the appellant puts forward a complaint of infringement of substantive Community law and an incomplete review and assessment of the factual basis. It claims that the General Court incompletely assessed the factual basis in this case which constitutes an error in law (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-51/09 P Becker v Harman International Industries
       (1)). This may be invoked before the Court of Justice in the context of an appeal (see Case C-317/10 P Union Investment Privatfonds v UniCredito Italiano
       (2)).
   In the judgment under appeal the General Court assumes that the presented declaration in lieu of an oath makes no reference to the further evidence submitted. This assertion is inaccurate. It is clear from the declaration that reference is made to the further evidence attached. Therefore, the General Court did not fully review and assess the declaration. This therefore concerns an error in law in the judgment under appeal, which may be raised at the appeal stage.
   If the General Court had fully reviewed and assessed the evidence before it, then it would have found genuine use of both of the marks cited in opposition pursuant to the first sentence of Article 42(2) and of Article 42(3) of the Community trade mark Regulation (3) (Regulation No 40/94). Consequently the judgment under appeal also infringes the first sentence of Article 42(2) and of Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94.
   In addition, the judgment under appeal also infringes Article 15(1) and (2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94. The General Court erred in law by stating that mark No 115 1 678 cited in opposition, ‘W. Amadeus Mozart’ is not used as a mark.

      (1)  [2010] ECR I-5805.

      (2)  [2011] ECR I-5471.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Case C-46/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Czech Republic

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/9

         Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Czech Republic
   (Case C-46/06)
   (2006/C 74/16)
   Language of the case: Czech
   An action against the Czech Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Jelinek and W. Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the following provisions of that directive: Article 3(3); Article 6(1) as regards the wording ‘any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective’; Article 6(3); the first, fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4); the second subparagraph of Article 7(1); Article 7(2); Article 8(2) as regards the wording ‘as well as of devices, products or components referred to in Article 6(2)’; Article 8(3); Article 10(1); and Article 11(2);

               2.

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing the directive in national law expired on 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.


title: Case T-145/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe — Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-145/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and subsequently by I. Fowler, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by J. Løje, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG;

               3.

               Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-24/01: Action brought on 30 January 2001 by Claire Staelen against European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
24.3.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 95/21
Action brought on 26 January 2001 by Eugene Emile                        Action brought on 30 January 2001 by Claire Staelen
Marie Kimman against Commission of the European                          against European Parliament and Council of the European
                          Communities                                                                  Union
                         (Case T-23/01)
                                                                                (Case T-24/01)
                         (2001/C 95/41)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 January 2001 by Eugene Emile
Marie Kimman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented
by Nicolas Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service in                An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Luxembourg.                                                              the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 30 January 2001
                                                                         by Claire Staelen, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg), represented
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              by Joëlle Choucroun, avocat, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 25 May 2000
      in so far as it reduces the applicant’s annual leave for
      2000 by one day;                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     annul the entire marking procedure in respect of the
                                                                               written tests for the competition or annul the decision of
                                                                               the selection board for competition Eur/151/98 awarding
                                                                               the applicant, for the written test, a mark which did not
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                allow her to be included in the reserve list;
The applicant, who at the material time was serving with the             —     in the alternative, order the Parliament and the Council
Commission Delegation in Latvia, contests the decision of the                  to pay to the applicant EUR 12 000 in respect of the
appointing authority to reduce by one day her annual leave                     non-material damage caused;
allowance for 2000. That decision was purportedly based on
the fact that the delegation in question was closed for 7 days
instead of the 6 days provided for in the Commission’s decision          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
of 17 July 1997.
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Unlawfulness of the Commission’s decision of 17 July
      1997 restricting to 6 days per year the maximum number
      of days on which the offices of the Delegation of the
      External Services may be closed, inasmuch as it fails to           The applicant in the present case was admitted to Competition
      observe the principle of equality as between officials.            EUR/151/98 designed to draw up a list of eligible persons
                                                                         to be held in reserve for recruitment as French-language
                                                                         administrators.
—     Infringement of the special Commission Decision of
      21 December 1998 laying down the number of official
      holidays for 1999.
                                                                         She claims in the respect to have learnt that the selection board
                                                                         had changed the minimum number of points required to pass
—     Infringement of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.               the first two written, thus increasing the number of candidates
                                                                         who initially passed those two tests without that decision
                                                                         being justified by a small number of candidates having
                                                                         obtained the requisite number of points. That irregularity
                                                                         significantly distorted the final result of the competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  24.3.2001
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges absence of or           Case T-72/00, Steffen Skovmand v Commission of the Euro-
insufficient reasons given by the selection board for changing          pean Communities.
the criteria for marking the tests in question by reducing the
averages for the points to be obtained for those tests, contrary        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
to Article 5 of Annex 3 to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                              Removal from the Register of Case T-143/00 (1)
       Removal from the Register of Case T-19/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/45)
                         (2001/C 95/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        By order of 14 November 2000, the President of the Fourth
By order of 20 November 2000, the President of the Third                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                Case T-143/00, Sylvia Haupt v Commission of the European
Case T-19/00, Jean Demaeght and Others v Court of Justice of            Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.00.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                              Removal from the Register of Case T-237/00 R
       Removal from the Register of Case T-72/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/46)
                         (2001/C 95/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        By order of 9 October 2000, the President of the Court of First
By order of 10 November 2000, the President of the Third                Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  removal from the Register of Case T-237/00 R, Patrick
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                Reynolds v European Parliament.


title: Case T-337/14: Action brought on 8 May 2014  — Rezon OOD v OHIM — mobile.international GmbH (mobile.de proMotor)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/24

         Action brought on 8 May 2014 — Rezon OOD v OHIM — mobile.international GmbH (mobile.de proMotor)
   (Case T-337/14)
   2014/C 245/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: P. Kanchev and T. Ignatova, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mobile.international GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 in Case R 950/2013-1;

               —

               grant the applications made to the divisions and boards of appeal of OHIM;

               —

               grant in its entirety the application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark mobile.international GmbH;

               —

               order reimbursement of the applicant’s costs;

               —

               order that experts be appointed to produce a written report on the evidential issues raised in the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘mobile.de proMotor’ for services in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 4 896 643.

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant, Rezon OOD.

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Relative ground for invalidity under Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78(1)(e) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 76 thereof and with Rule 22(3) of Regulation No 2868/95; infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; conflict, in the light of EU enlargement, between the Community trade mark registered subsequently and an earlier national trade mark.


title: Case F-59/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 March 2011 — Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (Civil service — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Appraisal — Promotion — Jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Admissibility — Implied decision of rejection — Internal Directive — Staff representative — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 March 2011 — Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank
   (Case F-59/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank - Appraisal - Promotion - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Admissibility - Implied decision of rejection - Internal Directive - Staff representative - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)
   2011/C 130/54
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and F. Martin, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the promotions of 29 April 2008 which do not include the applicant’s name and the assessment of the applicant for 2007. Second, annulment of the decision of the Appeal Committee to remain seized of the matter notwithstanding an objection. Finally, a declaration that the applicant has been the victim of psychological harassment and an order that the defendant desist from such conduct and compensate the non-material and material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the staff report for 2007 and the decision refusing M. De Nicola promotion.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim.

               3.

               Orders Mr De Nicola and the European Investment Bank to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205 of 29.8.09 p. 49.


title: Case C-168/99: Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 204/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
    protection of the national construction industry and the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
    reduction in national unemployment for the purpose of                Oikeus by order of that court of 27 April 1999 in the case
    preventing social tension, consistent with Community law?            of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and Pentti Juntunen
2. Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom
    to provide services under the EC Treaty if a domestic                                         (Case C-172/99)
    employer can pay less than the minimum wage laid down
    in a collective agreement declared to be generally binding                                    (1999/C 204/52)
    by concluding a collective agreement specific to one
    undertaking (and enjoying precedence), whereas this is
    — at least in fact — not possible for a non-German EC                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    employer in the case where he proposes to post workers               European Communities by an order of the Korkein Oikeus
    to the Federal Republic of Germany?                                  (Supreme Court), Finland, of 27 April 1999, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and
                                                                         Pentti Juntunen on the following question:
                                                                         Is a situation in which the operation of bus routes passes from
                                                                         one bus undertaking to another as a consequence of a
                                                                         tender procedure under Directive 92/50/EEC on public service
Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Commission of the                    contracts (1) to be regarded as a transfer of a business for the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                     purposes of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC (2)?
                          (Case C-168/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                             coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                          (1999/C 204/51)                                    contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May                    safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          undertakings, businesses or arts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
                                                                             5.3.1977, p. 26).
represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or
    communicate all the laws, regulations and administrative             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
    96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating                  (Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999,
    Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of                  in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
    veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and              Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertain-
    certain animal products and amending Directives                          ment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU)
    90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (1), the Kingdom of Spain
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                                                                                (Case C-173/99)
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the High Court of
The mandatory nature of the provisions ot the third paragraph            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article l0 of the EC           Office), of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary            Registry on 10 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic            of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.             Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and
That period, which is laid down in Article 4 of the directive,           Theatre Union (BECTU), on the following questions:
expired on 1 July 1997 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                         1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the conditions for
                                                                              entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by
(1) OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1.                                                      national legislation and/or practice’ in Article 7 of Council
                                                                              Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
                                                                              certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ
                                                                              1993 L 307, p. 18: ‘the Working Time Directive’) to be


title: Case C-298/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 16 June 2014  — Alain Brouillard v Selection board for the competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation, Belgian State

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 16 June 2014 — Alain Brouillard v Selection board for the competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation, Belgian State
   (Case C-298/14)
   2014/C 303/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alain Brouillard

      Defendants: Selection board for the competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation, Belgian State

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Directive 2005/36 of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications to be interpreted as applying in a situation where a Belgian national, who resides in Belgium and who has not pursued a professional activity (1) in another Member State, relies in support of his application to participate in a competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Belgian Cour de cassation on a degree awarded by a French university, namely a vocational master’s degree in law, economics and management, private law, lawyer-linguist specialism, awarded on 22 November 2010 by the University of Poitiers in France?

               2)

               Is the office of legal secretary at the Belgian Cour de cassation, in respect of which Article 259 duodecies of the Judicial Code makes appointment conditional on holding a doctorate or licentiate degree in law, a regulated profession within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2005/36 of 7 September 2005?

               3)

               Is the office of legal secretary at the Cour de cassation, the duties of which are defined in Article 135 bis of the Judicial Code, employment in the public service within the meaning of Article 45(4) TFEU, and is the application of Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Directive 2005/36 of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications therefore precluded by Article 45(4) TFEU?

               4)

               If Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Directive 2005/36 of 7 September 2005 apply in the present case, must they be interpreted as precluding the selection board charged with the recruitment of legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation from making participation in that competition conditional on the holding of a doctorate or licentiate degree in law awarded by a Belgian university, or on recognition by the French Community, which has competence in the field of education, that the master’s degree awarded to the applicant by the University of Poitiers in France is equivalent to the qualification of doctorate, licentiate degree or master’s degree in law awarded by a Belgian university?

               5)

               If Articles 45 and 49 TFEU and Directive 2005/36 of 7 September 2005 apply in the present case, must they be interpreted as requiring the selection board charged with the recruitment of legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation to compare the applicant’s qualifications resulting from his degrees as well as from his professional experience with those resulting from a doctorate or licentiate degree in law awarded by a Belgian university and, if necessary, to impose a compensation measure on him under Article 14 of Directive 2005/36?

      (1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).


title: Case C-257/16: Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/21

      Order of the President of the Court of 18 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH
      (Case C-257/16) (1)

      (2016/C 454/39)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the Council of the European Union (Case T-36/98)

text:
2.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/17
1. dismisses the application for interim measures;                Communities in accordance with Article 47(1) of the EC
                                                                  Statute of the Court of Justice.
2. reserves the costs.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities of 25 November 1997 (K (97) 3620),
              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Ð declare that the applicant's case is one of hardship
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                within the meaning of Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
                      of 2 March 1998                                  No 404/93.
in Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice v. Commission of the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                  European Communities
(Temporary member of staff Ð Suspension Ð Suspension              In 1991 the applicant made investments in a banana-
        of operation Ð No need to give a decision)                ripening centre. In its view there had at that time been no
                                                                  grounds at all to suppose that the market in bananas
                        (98/C 137/37)
                                                                  might be affected by Commission intervention or other
                                                                  regulatory measures. When the proposal for the
              (Language of the case: French)                      organisation of the market in bananas was put forward all
                                                                  the applicant's investments had already been made. The
In Case T-24/98 R: Antonio Pernice, a member of the               reference years used as a basis, which have caused the
temporary staff at the Commission of the European                 applicant heavy losses, unfairly place it at a disadvantage.
Communities, represented by Ariane Tornel and Jean-NoeÈl
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        Furthermore, the organisation of the market has resulted
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de                   in improper interference with the applicant's business
Cessange, against Commission of the European                      enterprise which has been set up and carried on, because a
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                special sacrifice is expected of the applicant, in contrast to
Currall) Ð application for suspension of the operation of         other traders. It simultaneously follows, moreover, that the
the decision of the Commission of the European                    applicant and its shareholders and management are being
Communities of 12 November 1997 seeking to maintain               denied the right freely to choose their trade, without
the suspension imposed on the applicant pursuant to               reasons which would justify such a difference in treatment
Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and the second                being apparent.
paragraph of Article 49(1) of the conditions of
employment of other servants of the European
Communities Ð the President of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 2 March 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                  Action brought on 2 March 1998 by Aruba against the
1. there is no need to adjudicate on the application;                            Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-36/98)
2. costs are reserved.
                                                                                (98/C 137/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Action brought on 3 February 1998 by Hermanek &
                                                                  Communities on 2 March 1998 by Aruba, represented by
    Rademacher GmbH against the Commission of the
                                                                  Mr P. V. F. Bos and Mr M. Slotboom, with an address for
                  European Communities
                                                                  service in Luxembourg at the Offices of Loesch & Wolter,
                       (Case T-26/98)                             11, rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 137/38)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  Ð annul Council Decision 97/803 of 24 November
An action against the Commission of the European                       1997 (1) pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Treaty,
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February
1998 by Hermanek & Rademacher GmbH, Cologne,                      or, in the alternative,
represented by, and with an address for service at the
offices of, Hubert Weber, Rechtsanwalt, 14, Zülpicher             Ð annul paragraphs 31, 32, 53 (in so far as they concern
Platz, Cologne. The application was transmitted to the                 Article 232(1), first and second indent, of Council
Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European                Decision 91/482/EEC), 54 and 55 of Article 1 of
 ---pagebreak--- C 137/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.5.98
    Council Decision 97/803 pursuant to Articles 173 and                provision in question is that it is an anticipatory decision
    174 of the EC Treaty, and                                           on aid, residual aid, with effect from the year 2000, for
                                                                        the southern region, the only area for which no provision
                                                                        was made for aid to be reduced to zero during the
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                        currency of Regulation No 1105/95.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The applicants rely on the following pleas in law:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those raised in Case T-310/97, Nederlandse Antillen v.                  Ð lack of any statement of reasons. Since the 14th recital
Council of the European Union (2).                                           in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1101/95
                                                                             clearly indicates the essential reasons for maintaining a
(1) OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50.                                             significant level of adjustment aid for sugar-beet
(2) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                               growing in the south until 2000/2001, it is not clear
                                                                             how it can possibly now be presumed now that those
                                                                             reasons will no longer be valid after 2001. Rather, it is
                                                                             clear that at least the climatic and soil conditions of
                                                                             the area, expressly taken into account in the
                                                                             abovementioned recital, are bound to persist,
Action brought on 5 March 1998 by Associazione
Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo di
                                                                        Ð infringement of essential procedural requirements, in
         Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                             that, since the contested Article 2 operates as a
                         (Case T-38/98)                                      decision specific to the south of Italy rather than as a
                          (98/C 137/40)                                      regulatory provision in the strict sense, the Italian
                                                                             State should have been consulted so that it could
                                                                             submit observations. That applies also because of the
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              importance and essential nature of the problems of
                                                                             agriculture in the south in the context of the national
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      economy and the adverse effects which outright
brought before the Court of First Instance on 5 March                        abolition of aid might entail for the south,
1998 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori, Francesco
Coccia and Vincenzo di Giovine, represented by Luigi
Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna                Ð misuse of powers. In this case the purpose pursued is
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        incomprehensible, above all regarding timing and
chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.                     regarding the divergence, again from the temporal
                                                                             point of view, between the decision and its frame of
                                                                             reference. This is also borne out by the fact that such
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                        a clear anticipation of a decision which should not
should:                                                                      have been adopted until 2001 and then with reference
                                                                             to the situation prevailing at that time could
Ð annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/                        improperly constitute a predetermined frame of
    97 of 15 December 1997,                                                  reference inappropriate for any manoeuvring regarding
                                                                             Community production quotas assigned to each
                                                                             Member State. Finally, as regards the progressive
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      removal of existing disparities, described by Article 39
                                                                             of the Treaty as an essential aim of the CAP, it is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          difficult to see how it can now be assumed that in
                                                                             2001 the structural imbalances in agriculture and
                                                                             industry will have disappeared, the fact being that
The applicants, the association protecting the interests of                  natural disparities will remain because of their
beet-growers throughout Italy, and beet-growers operating                    inherent characteristics.
directly in the south, within the meaning of the regional
diversification criteria laid down in Article 46 of
Regulation (EC) No 1785/81, as amended by Regulation                    (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1101/95 of 24 April 1995
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the common
(EC) No 1101/95 (1), seek the annulment of Article 2 of
                                                                            organisation of the market in the sugar sector and Regulation
Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 (2) in so far as it provides for                 (EEC) No 1010/86 laying down general rules for the
the abolition of any adjustment aid for the sugar-beet                      production refund on certain sugar products used in the
sector, with effect from the marketing year 2001/2002.                      chemical industry (OJ L 110, 17.5.1995, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997
                                                                            authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar-beet producers and
According to the applicants, the contested provision                        abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year
predominantly affects beet-growing areas in the southern                    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).
region of Italy, thereby being in the nature of an
individual decision rather than a regulation in the true
sense. From that standpoint, the essential feature of the