title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-407/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för Högskolan, Sweden): Katarina Abrahamsson, Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogelqvist (Concept of "national court or tribunal" — Equal treatment for men and women — Positive action in favour of women — Compatibility with Community law)

text:
21.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 302/11
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       —     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 of 12 May 1995
                                                                                amending Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 laying down detailed
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                          rules for the application of the premium system for raw tobacco.
                            of 6 July 2000
                                                                             (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
in Case C-402/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Agricola Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc di Mercati Federica
(ATB) and Others v Ministero per le Politiche Agricole,
Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
                  (AIMA) and Mario Pittaro (1)
(Common organisation of the market — Raw tobacco —
Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 and of
 Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 1066/95 and 1067/95)                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2000/C 302/19)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      of 6 July 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       in Case C-407/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                    in the European Court Reports)                           from the Överklagandenämnden för Högskolan, Sweden):
                                                                             Katarina Abrahamsson, Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogel-
In Case C-402/98: reference to the Court under Article 177                                                    qvist (1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative                  (Concept of ‘national court or tribunal’ — Equal treatment
Court, Lazio), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            for men and women — Positive action in favour of women
pending before that court between: Agricola Tabacchi Bonavic-                             — Compatibility with Community law)
ina Snc di Mercati Federica (ATB) and Others and Ministero
per le Politiche Agricole, Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel
Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and Mario Pittaro, on the validity of                                            (2000/C 302/20)
Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 of 27 March 1995
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common
organisation of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1995 L 73,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
p. 13), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 of 12 May
1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the raw tobacco
quota system for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 harvests (OJ 1995                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L 108, p. 5) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 of                                         in the European Court Reports)
12 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3478/92 laying
down detailed rules for the application of the premium system
for raw tobacco (OJ 1995 L 108, p. 11) — the Court (Sixth                    In Case C-407/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Överklagande-
teur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,               nämnden födr Högskolan (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    the proceedings pending before that court between Katarina
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Abrahamsson, Leif Anderson v Elisabet Fogelqvist — on the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it                  interpretation of Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive
held:                                                                        76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
                                                                             principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
                                                                             access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has          and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court
disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of:             (Fifth Chamber) composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and
—     Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 of 27 March 1995                     H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate General: A. Saggio; Registrar:
      amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common                     R. Grass, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it has
      organisation of the market in raw tobacco;                             ruled:
—     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 of 12 May 1995
      laying down detailed rules for the application of Council              1.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
      Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the raw tobacco                       9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
      quota system for the 1995, 1996 and 1997 harvests; and                       equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
      employment, vocational training and promotion, and working             Siegen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
      conditions and Article 141(4) EC preclude national legislation         pending before that court between Margrit Dietrich and
      under which a candidate for a public post who belongs to the           Westdeutscher Rundfunk — on the interpretation of
      under-represented sex and possesses sufficient qualifications for      Article 2(a) and 1(3)(a) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of
      that post must be chosen in preference to a candidate of the           29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements
      opposite sex who would otherwise have been appointed, where            for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual
      this is necessary to secure the appointment of a candidate of the      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      under-represented sex and the difference between the respective        89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14) — the Court (Sixth
      merits of the candidates is not so great as to give rise to a          Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-
      breach of the requirement of objectivity in making appointments.       teur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
2.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207 and Article 141(4)            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
      EC also preclude national legislation of that kind where it            2000, in which it has ruled:
      applies only to procedures for filling a predetermined number of
      posts or to posts created as part of a specific programme of a         1.     The term ‘graphic display screen’, for the purposes of Article 2(a)
      particular higher educational institution allowing the appli-                 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
      cation of positive discrimination measures.                                   minimum safety and health requirements for work with display
                                                                                screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
3.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207 does not preclude a                  of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), must be interpreted
      rule of national case-law under which a candidate belonging to                as including screens that display film recordings in analogue or
      the under-represented sex may be granted preference over a                    digital form.
      competitor of the opposite sex, provided that the candidates
      possess equivalent or substantially equivalent merits, where the       2.     Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 90/270 is to be interpreted as
      candidatures are subjected to an objective assessment which                   meaning that the term ‘control cabs for ... machinery’ does not
      takes account of the specific personal situations of all the                  extend to a job such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in
      candidates.                                                                   which analogue or digital images are processed with the aid of
                                                                                technical devices and/or computer programmes in order to
4.    The question whether national rules providing for positive                    produce television broadcasts.
      discrimination in the making of appointments in higher
      education are lawful cannot depend on the level of the post to
      be filled.                                                             (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 July 2000
                            of 6 July 2000
                                                                             in Case C-73/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-11/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     the Sozialgericht Münster): Viktor Movrin v Landesver-
the Arbeitsgericht Siegen): Margrit Dietrich v                                                 sicherungsanstalt Westfalen (1)
                   Westdeutscher Rundfunk (1)
                                                                             (Social security — EC Treaty — Council Regulation (EEC)
(Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health                       No 1408/71 — Recipient of retirement pensions — Compul-
requirements for work with display screen equipment —                        sory sickness insurance scheme in Member State of residence
Scope — Meaning of display screen equipment for the                          — Contribution — Grant under the legislation of another
purposes of Article 2 — Meaning of ‘drivers’ cabs or control                                              Member State)
cabs for vehicles or machinery’ for the purposes of Article 1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/22)
                           (2000/C 302/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-11/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 In Case C-73/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Sozialgericht (Social


title: Case C-527/14: Order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche, Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in the presence of: Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Potsdam, Emeka Emmanuel Mary Oruche

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Ukamaka Mary Jecinta Oruche, Nzubechukwu Emmanuel Oruche v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in the presence of: Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Potsdam, Emeka Emmanuel Mary Oruche
   (Case C-527/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/32)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-64/07: Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM — ( 350 )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/51

         Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM — (‘350’)
   (Case T-64/07)
   (2007/C 95/102)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol, Sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Republic of Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

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

               —

               set aside in its entirety the decision delivered on 21 December 2006 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case No R 1033/2006-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘350 ’for goods in Class 16

      Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: incorrect application of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designation ‘350’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 18 January 1996 in Case C-446/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Segunda Instância): SEIM v. Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas (Repayment or remission of import duties)

text:
13 . 4 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 108/ 1
                                                                       I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and C. Gulmann,
                        (Third Chamber )                                  Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 18 January 1 996, in which it
                       of 18 January 1996                                  rules :
in Case C-446/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Tributário de Segunda Instância ): SEIM v.
             Subdirector-Geral das AlfândegasH                             1 . The decision of the national customs authority, adopted
          (Repayment or remission of import duties)                            pursuant to Article 7 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 1574/80 of 20 June 1980 laying down
                          ( 96/C 108/01 )                                      provisions for the implementation of Articles 16 and 1 7
                                                                               of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79, relates
                                                                               directly to the obligation of a natural or legal person to
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                pay the amount of the import duties applicable under
                                                                               the current provisions to the goods subject to such
                                                                               duties. It is for the national court to draw the relevant
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   conclusions from that finding when determining
          published in the European Court Reports)                             whether it has jurisdiction in the matter.
In Case C-446/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                2 . The words 'duties . . . which have not yet been paid'
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Tributârio de Segunda                         appearing in Article 1 (2) (d) of Council Regulation
Instância ( Portugal ) for a preliminary ruling in the                         (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or
proceedings pending before that court between SEIM                             remission of import or export duties do not refer only to
Sociedade de Exportaçâo e Importaçâo de Materials Lda                          duties whose payment has been deferred.
and Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas — on the
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 of
2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or                     3 . Examination of the fourth question has disclosed no
export duties ( OJ 1979 L 175 , p . 1 ), as amended by Council                 factor of such a kind as to call in question the validity of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3069/86 of 7 October 1986 ( OJ 1986                      Article 4 (2) (c) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
L 286 , p . 1 ), Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1574/80                      No 3799/86 of 12 December 1986 laying down
of 20 June 1980 laying down provisions for the                                 provisions for the implementation ofArticles 4a, 6a, 11a
implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of Council Regulation                     and 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79.
 ( EEC ) No 1430/79 ( OJ 1980 L 161 , p . 3 ) and Commission
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3799/86 of 12 December 1986 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Articles 4a , 6a ,               4 . Where, in an application actually seeking remission of
 11a and 13 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 ( OJ                      import duties, the person concerned relies on facts
 1986 L 352 , p . 19 ) and on the validity of Article 4 ( 2 ) ( c ) of         capable of constituting a special situation within
 Regulation No 3799/86 , — the Court ( Third Chamber),                         the meaning of Article 13 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
 composed of: J. -P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     No 1430/79 , without, however, expressly mentioning
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/2               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 4 . 96
      that provision, that omission does not prevent the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      national customs authority from considering the                                              ( Sixth Chamber)
      application with reference to that provision.
                                                                                of 1 February 1996
                                                                          in Case C-280/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                          the Centrale Raad van Beroep ): Y. M. Posthuma
                                                                          van Damme v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor
                                                                          Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen, and N. Oztürk
                                                                          v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (')
                                                                          (Equal treatment for men and women — Social security —
                                                                          Directive 79/7/EEC — Interpretation of the judgment of
                                                                          24 February 1994 in Case C-343/92 De Weerd, née Roks,
                                                                                and Others)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/03 )
                          ( Sixth Chamber )
                        of 1 February 1996
in Case C-l 77/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
from the Pretura Circondariale, Rome, Sezione Distaccata
di Frascati ): criminal proceedings against Gianfranco
                                 Perfili ( 1 )
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           — Judicial procedure — Discrimination)                                   published in the European Court Reports)
                             { 96/C 108/02 )
                                                                          In Case C-280/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                          of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep
                                                                          ( Higher Social Security Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                          Y.    M.   Posthuma-van        Damme     and Bestuur    van    de
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en
                                                                          Huisvrouwen, and, on the other hand, between N. Oztiirk
In Case C-177/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177               and Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging —
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District                on the interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
Magistrate's Court ), Rome, Sezione Distaccata di Frascati                 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
 ( Frascati Division) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal            the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
proceedings pending before that court against Gianfranco                  matters of social security ( OJ 1979 L 6 , p . 24 ) — the Court
Perfili, civil party: Lloyd's of London — on the                           ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of
interpretation of Articles 3 , 5 and 6 of the EC Treaty and               the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler
Article 6 of the European Convention for the protection of                 ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly,
human rights and fundamental freedoms of 4 November                       Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for
 1950, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 1996 , in
 C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,                 which it rules :
 F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and
 H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General ;
 R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 February 1996 ,
                                                                           Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
 the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                           1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of
                                                                           equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
 Article 6 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Articles 52                security does not preclude the application of national
 and 59 thereof, laying down the principle of non                         legislation which makes receipt of a benefit for incapacity
 discrimination on the grounds of nationality, must be                     for work subject to the requirement of having received a
  interpreted as not precluding a Member State's legislation               certain income from or in connection with work in the year
 from requiring a victim of a criminal offence who wishes to               preceding the commencement of incapacity, even if it is
  bring suit as a civil party in criminal proceedings to grant his         established that that requirement affects more women than
                                                                           men .
  representative a special power of attorney, even when the
  law of the Member State of which the victim is a national
  does not lay down such a formality.
                                                                            (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
  C ) OJ 1994 C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case T-261/12: Action brought on 13 June 2012 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/26

         Action brought on 13 June 2012 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission
   (Case T-261/12)
   2012/C 243/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Repair the damages caused to the applicant by the unlawful decision of the EU Delegation to Serbia of 23 March 2012 to cancel the award of the contract ‘Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of Competition (CPC) in the Republic of Serbia’ (OJ 2011 S 147) which was awarded to the applicant, as leader of the consortium for the project above;

               —

               Order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted unlawfully by accusing the applicant of having an unfair advantage in relation to the other tenderers, since this conflict of interest that the applicant is being accused of concerns a totally independent third company, i.e. European profiles SA and not the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its obligation to provide a clear and grounded decision of cancellation of the award, in violation of Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, in that it failed to justify the reason for which the applicant was given an unfair advantage in relation to the other tenderers.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its right to be heard by failing to invite the applicant to express its opinion on what may be the matter constituting conflict of interest, in violation of article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its obligation to give the applicant the access to the documents which would prove the alleged illegal link and the unfair advantage to DIADIKASIA Consortium, according to Article 42 of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that those actions by the defendant constitute a serious violation of the principle of legal certainty and an error in law as well as of the Article 4 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, when it unexpectedly cancelled its decision to award the subject project to the applicant’s consortium on alleged grounds of ‘conflict of interest’.


title: Case C-581/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd, Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV v European Commission (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Setting of the gross price of road pavement bitumen — Setting of a rebate for road builders — 2002 Leniency Notice — Last paragraph of point 23(b) — Partial immunity — Evidence relating to facts previously unknown to the European Commission — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/5

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 November 2013 — Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd, Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV v European Commission
   (Case C-581/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Setting of the gross price of road pavement bitumen - Setting of a rebate for road builders - 2002 Leniency Notice - Last paragraph of point 23(b) - Partial immunity - Evidence relating to facts previously unknown to the European Commission - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 102/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd, Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and P. Van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-370/06 Kuwait Petroleum and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) concerning agreements on the fixing of the gross price of road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands and on the fixing of a uniform minimum rebate for road-builders participating in the cartel and a smaller maximum rebate for other road builders — Reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait Petroleum International Ltd and Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case C-407/12: Action brought on 3 September 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/16

      Action brought on 3 September 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
      (Case C-407/12)
      (2012/C 331/25)
      Language of the case: Slovene

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, L. Nicolae and M. Žebre, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

         Form of order sought

      The Commission claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws and other measures necessary to transpose Directive 2009/140/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC (2) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC (3) on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC (4) on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services or, in any case, by failing to notify the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive;

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to make a penalty payment in the sum of EUR 6 531,84 a day, from the day of delivery of judgment in this case, on the grounds of its failure to fulfil its obligation to notify all measures for the transposition of Directive 2009/136/EC;

                  —

                  order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The period prescribed for transposition of that directive expired on 25 May 2011.

         (1)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37.

         (2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

         (3)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.

         (4)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Daniele Biasci and Others v Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets — Conditions of authorisation — Requirement of police authorisation and a licence — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between bet collection points — Cross-border activities analogous to those covered by the licence — Prohibition — Mutual recognition of betting and gaming licences)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana — Italy) — Daniele Biasci and Others v Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno
   (Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets - Conditions of authorisation - Requirement of police authorisation and a licence - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between bet collection points - Cross-border activities analogous to those covered by the licence - Prohibition - Mutual recognition of betting and gaming licences)
   2013/C 325/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana

      Parties to the main proceedings

               (Case C-660/11)

                  Applicants: Daniele Biasci, Alessandro Pasquini, Andrea Milianti, Gabriele Maggini, Elena Secenti, Gabriele Livi

                  Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Livorno

                  Other party to the proceedings: SNAI — Sindacato Nazionale Agenzie Ippiche SpA

               (Case C-8/12)

                  Applicants: Cristian Rainone, Orentino Viviani, Miriam Befani

                  Defendants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Prato, Questura di Firenze

                  Other parties to the proceedings: SNAI — Sindacato Nazionale Agenzie Ippiche SpA, Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana — Freedom of movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon the obtaining of a public security authorisation and permit issued by the national authorities — Non-recognition of authorisations and permits issued by foreign authorities — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which requires companies wishing to pursue activities linked to gaming and betting to obtain a police authorisation in addition to a licence issued by the State in order to pursue such activities and which restricts the grant of such authorisation inter alia to applicants who already hold such a licence.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.
               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(3) of the model contract, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.
               National legislation which in fact precludes all cross-border activity in the betting and gaming sector, irrespective of the form in which that activity is undertaken and, in particular, in cases where there is the possibility of direct contact between consumer and operator and where physical checks for police purposes can be made of an undertaking’s intermediaries who are present on national territory, is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC. It is for the referring court to verify whether that is the case as regards Article 23(3) of the model contract.

               3.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as meaning that, under the current state of EU law, the fact that an operator holds, in the Member State in which it is established, an authorisation permitting it to offer betting and gaming does not prevent another Member State, while complying with the requirements of EU law, from making such a provider offering such services to consumers in its territory subject to the holding of an authorisation issued by its own authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.03.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 September 1995 in Case C-48/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten, Copenhagen): Ledernes Hovedorganisation, acting on behalf of Ole Rygaard v. Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Strø Mølle Akustik A/S (Interpretation of Article 1 (1) of Directive 77/187/EEC - Transfer of an undertaking - Contract between two contractors for the completion of works made with the consent of the awarder of the main building contract)

text:
No C 299/4            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11 . 11 . 95
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   of 19 September 1995                                                  of 19 September 1995
in Case C-364/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           in Case C-48/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ): Antonio Marinari v.               the Sø- og Handelsretten , Copenhagen ): Ledernes
    Lloyds Bank pic and Zubaidi Trading Company (')                  Hovedorganisation , acting on behalf of Ole Rygaard v.
(Brussels Convention — Article 5 (3) — Place where the               Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Strø Mølle
                  harmful event occurred)                                                      Akustik A/S ( 1 )
                          ( 95/C 299/04 )                            (Interpretation ofArticle 1(1) ofDirective 77/187/EEC —
                                                                      Transfer of an undertaking — Contract between two
                                                                     contractors for the completion of works made with the
                                                                         consent of the awarder of the main building contract)
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 ( 95/C 299/05 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he                         (Language of the case: Danish)
        published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-364/ 93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol                  published in the European Court Reports)
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial             In Case C-48/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Matters by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            the EC Treaty from the So- og Handelsretten ( Maritime and
court between Antonio Marinari , on the one hand , and               Commercial Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Lloyd 's Bank pic and Zubaidi Trading Company , on the               proceedings pending before that court between Ledernes
other — on the interpretation of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the              Hovedorganisation, acting on behalf of Ole Rygaard and
Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the              Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, acting on behalf of Strø Mølle
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial                     Akustik A/S — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) of
Matters ( OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36 ), as amended by the                  Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the                 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                     the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of
Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland , and of the United
                                                                     transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ 1978
                                                                     ( OJ 1977 L 61 , p. 26 ) — the Court, composed of G. C.
L 304 , p. 1 and — amended text — p. 77 ) and by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the                Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
Hellenic Republic ( OJ 1982 L 388 , p. 1 ) — the Court,
                                                                     Mancini , C. N. Kakouris , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, E. A.
                                                                     ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch , H. Ragnemalm
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and P. Jann ( Presidents of
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho           and L. Sevón, Judges ; G. Cosmas , Advocate-General ;
                                                                     L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch ,
                                                                     judgment on 19 September 1995 , in which it rules :
H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón , Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 19 September 1995 , in which it rules :                             the taking over, with a view to completing, with the consent
                                                                     of the awarder of the main building cointract, works started
                                                                     by another undertaking, of two apprentices and an
                                                                     employee, together with the materials assigned to those
the term 'place where the harmful event occurred ' in                works, does not constitute a transfer of an undertaking,
Article 5 (3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on              business or part of a business within the meaning ofArticle 1
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and            ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of 14 February 1977
Commercial Matters must be interpreted as not referring to           on the approximatioin of the laws of the Member States
the place where the victim claims to have suffered financial         relating to the safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event
loss consequential upon initial damage arising and suffered          of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
by him in another Contracting State.                                 businesses .
(') OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case T-119/06: Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission (Dumping — Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India — Breach of an undertaking — Principle of proportionality — Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/30

      Judgment of the General Court of (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2010 — Usha Martin Ltd v Council of the European Union and European Commission
      (Case T-119/06) (1)

      (Dumping - Imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India - Breach of an undertaking - Principle of proportionality - Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 8(1), (7) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
      (2010/C 288/57)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Usha Martin Ltd (Kolkata, India) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, and J. Branton, Solicitor, V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer); and European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/38/EC of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision 1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 54), and Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 of 23 January 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ 2006 L 22, p. 1)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Usha Martin Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-171/14: Order of the General Court of 26 November 2014  — Léon Van Parys v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Commission letter informing about the continuation of the suspension of the time-limit for dealing with an application for remission of customs duties — Application for a ruling — Lack of competence of the General Court — No interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/19

         Order of the General Court of 26 November 2014 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
   (Case T-171/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Customs union - Commission letter informing about the continuation of the suspension of the time-limit for dealing with an application for remission of customs duties - Application for a ruling - Lack of competence of the General Court - No interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 056/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros, B.-R. Killmann and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the letter of the European Commission of 24 January 2014 informing the applicant about the continuation of the suspension of the time-limit for dealing with an application for remission of customs duties under Article 907 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and, secondly, application for a ruling that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 had effect with regard to the applicant after the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T-324/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:136).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               Firma Léon Van Parys is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-387/09: Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — Applied Microengineering v Commission (Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration — Contracts concerning the projects ‘Formation of a New Design House for MST’ and ‘Assessment of a New Anodic Bonder’ — Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid — Enforceable decision — Decision amending the contested decision during the proceedings — Legal basis of the action — Nature of the pleas put forward — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/22

         Judgment of the General Court of (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 — Applied Microengineering v Commission
   (Case T-387/09) (1)

   (Fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration - Contracts concerning the projects ‘Formation of a New Design House for MST’ and ‘Assessment of a New Anodic Bonder’ - Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid - Enforceable decision - Decision amending the contested decision during the proceedings - Legal basis of the action - Nature of the pleas put forward - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Principle of sound administration)
   2012/C 355/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Applied Microengineering Ltd (Didcot, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by P. Walravens and J. De Wachter, and subsequently by P. Walravens and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, acting as Agent, assisted by R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5797 of 16 July 2009 relating to the recovery of the sum of EUR 258 560.61 plus interest payable by the applicant in the framework of the projects IST-199-11823 FOND MST (‘Formation of a New Design House for MST’) and IST-2000-28229 ANAB (‘Assessment of a New Anodic Bonder’).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Applied Microengineering Ltd, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case F-117/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Van Soest v Commission (Civil Service — Recruitment — Competition — Conditions for admission — Required qualification — Concept of a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education and giving access to post-secondary education — Decisions of the selection board for a competition — Nature of the review exercised by the appointing authority)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Van Soest v Commission
   (Case F-117/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Recruitment - Competition - Conditions for admission - Required qualification - Concept of a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education and giving access to post-secondary education - Decisions of the selection board for a competition - Nature of the review exercised by the appointing authority)
   2011/C 340/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Barry Van Soest (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision which terminated the recruitment procedure for the applicant, who had passed a competition and been included on the reserve list, because he did not hold a diploma of secondary education giving access to post-secondary education.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Van Soest.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.11, p. 66.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2001 in Case C-163/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Exclusive rights — Airport administration — Landing charges — Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC))

text:
C 200/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          able to obtain to the internal workers’ representative bodies
                                                                                requesting it. Communication of documents clarifying and
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                        explaining the information which is indispensable for that
                                                                                purpose may also be required, in so far as that communication
                                                                                is necessary in order that the employees concerned or their
                          of 29 March 2001                                       representatives may gain access to information enabling them
                                                                                to determine whether or not they are entitled to request the
in Case C-62/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         opening of negotiations.
the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf): Betriebsrat der bof-
rost* Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG
v Bofrost* Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH &                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                              Co. KG (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 11(1) and (2)
of Directive 94/45/EC — Information to be made available
by undertakings on request — Information intended to
establish the existence of a controlling undertaking within a
            Community-scale group of undertakings)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2001/C 200/05)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                  of 29 March 2001
                                                                           in Case C-163/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                      the European Communities (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Competition — Exclusive rights — Airport administration
In Case C-62/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               — Landing charges — Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesarbeitsger-                                       Article 86(3) EC))
icht Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court) (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Betriebsrat der bofrost* Josef H. Boquoi                                           (2001/C 200/06)
Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG and Bofrost* Josef
H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG — on the
interpretation of Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a
European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale
undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ                                     in the European Court Reports)
1994 L 254, p. 64) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-                  In Case C-163/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;            M.L. Duarte and F. Viegas) v Commission of the European
A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has              Communities (Agents: K. Leivo and M. Afonso and sub-
given a judgment on 29 March 2001, in which it has ruled:                  sequently M. Afonso and M. Erhart) — application for
                                                                           annulment of Commission Decision 1999/199/EC of 10 Feb-
1.    On a proper construction of Article 11(1) and (2) of                 ruary 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 90 of
      Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the               the Treaty (IV/35.703 — Portuguese airports) (OJ 1999 L 69,
      establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in          p. 31) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
      Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups              mann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet
      of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting         (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo,
      employees, an undertaking which is part of a group of                Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
      undertakings is required to supply information to the internal       Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 March 2001, in which
      workers’ representative bodies, even where it has not yet been       it:
      established that the management to which the workers’ request
      is addressed is the management of a controlling undertaking          1.    Dismisses the application;
      within a group of undertakings.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
2.    Where information relating to the structure or organisation of
      a group of undertakings forms part of the information which is
      essential to the opening of negotiations for the setting-up of a     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      European Works Council or for the transnational information
      and consultation of employees, an undertaking within the group
      is required to supply the information which it possesses or is


title: Case C-376/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio Stabile Edile Scrl v Comune di Milano

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio Stabile Edile Scrl v Comune di Milano
   (Case C-376/08)
   (2008/C 327/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio Stabile Edile Scrl

      Defendant: Comune di Milano
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the correct application of Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of 31 March 2004 impeded by the provisions of national law laid down in Article 36(5) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, as amended by Legislative Decree No 113 of 31 July 2007, under which:

                           —

                           where a member of a consortium participates in a tendering procedure for a public contract, the consortium itself is automatically excluded from participation solely on the ground that it has a particular legal form (that of a permanent consortium) rather than another, essentially identical, legal form (that of a grouping of producers' and workers' cooperatives or a grouping of artisan/handicraft businesses); and

                           —

                           where a permanent consortium participates in a tendering procedure for a public contract, and where it has declared that it is competing on behalf of other companies and that it will entrust the works to other companies if it is awarded the contract, a company is automatically excluded from participation solely on the formal ground that it is a member of that consortium?

               2.

               Is the correct application of Articles 39, 43, 49 and 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community impeded by the provisions of national law laid down in Article 36(5) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, as amended by Legislative Decree No 113 of 31 July 2007, under which:

                           —

                           where a member of a consortium participates in a tendering procedure for a public contract, the consortium itself is automatically excluded from participation solely on the ground that it has a particular legal form (that of a permanent consortium) rather than another, essentially identical, legal form (a grouping of producers' and workers' cooperatives or a grouping of artisan/handicraft businesses), and

                           —

                           where a permanent consortium participates in a tendering procedure for a public contract, and where it has declared that it is competing on behalf of other companies and that it will entrust the works to other companies if it is awarded the contract, a company is automatically excluded from participation solely on the formal ground that it is a member of that consortium?

      (1)  OJ L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-336/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN — Prior national figurative and Community word marks ZANOTTI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2013 — Italiana Calzature v OHIM — Vicini (Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN)
   (Case T-336/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Giuseppe GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN - Prior national figurative and Community word marks ZANOTTI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 147/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Societá Italiana Calzature SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vicini SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (represented by: M. Franzosi and M. Giorgetti, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 634/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Societá Italiana Calzature SpA and Vicini SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Societá Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case C-116/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — C. Meerts v Proost NV (Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Interpretation of Clause 2.6 and 2.7 — Part-time parental leave — Dismissal of a worker before the end of parental leave without observing the statutory period of notice — Calculation of compensation)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium)) — C. Meerts v Proost NV
   (Case C-116/08) (1)

   (Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Interpretation of Clause 2.6 and 2.7 - Part-time parental leave - Dismissal of a worker before the end of parental leave without observing the statutory period of notice - Calculation of compensation)
   2009/C 297/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: C. Meerts

      Respondent: Proost NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of clauses 2.4 to 2.7 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4) — Parental leave in the form of part-time working — Dismissal of the employee before the end of the period of parental leave without urgent cause or without observing the statutory period of notice — Calculation of payment in lieu of notice

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995, which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, must be interpreted as precluding, where an employer unilaterally terminates a worker’s full-time employment contract of indefinite duration, without urgent cause or without observing the statutory period of notice, whilst the worker is on part-time parental leave, the compensation to be paid to the worker from being determined on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case T-541/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v OHIM — Gulbenkian (GULBENKIAN)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/20

         Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian v OHIM — Gulbenkian (GULBENKIAN)
   (Case T-541/11)
   2011/C 362/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (Lisboa, Portugal) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Micael Gulbenkian (Oeiras, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 July 2011 in case R 1436/2010-2;

               —

               Review and consider the documents submitted during the opposition and appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) regarding the reputation of the earlier mark or order the defendant to rule a new decision considering the said documentation;

               —

               Uphold in its entirety the opposition filed by the applicant;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to definitively reject and in its entirety the contested Community trade mark No 4724647, of the word mark ‘GULBENKIAN’, for all the goods and services applied for in classes 4, 33, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 44;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings; and

               —

               Order the intervener, in case it appears before the Court, to pay the costs of the current proceedings, as well as those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Office (opposition and appeal).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GULBENKIAN’, for among others goods and services in classes 4, 33, 35, 36, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 4724647

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Well-known mark ‘Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian’ in Portugal for ‘arts (plastic arts and music); charity (health and human development); science (research and promotion); education (support and development); technical and management services related to the oil industry’; Company name ‘Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian’ used for ‘arts (plastic arts and music); charity (health and human development); science (research and promotion); education (support and development); technical and management services related to the oil industry’; Logos Nos 5.351 and 5.352 ‘Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian’ used for ‘arts (plastic arts and music); charity (health and human development); science (research and promotion); education (support and development); technical and management services related to the oil industry’.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the appeal for the remaining part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and the applicable case-law, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly appreciated the various factors to be taken into account when assessing likelihood of confusion.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 23 October 1997 in Case C-159/94: Commission of the European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. French Republic, supported by Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligatons - Exclusive rights to import and export gas and electricity)

text:
C 387/2                                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 12 . 97
Buckley, assisted by John D. Cooke and Jennifer Payne ) —             37 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
application for a declaration that, by establishing and               Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
maintaining, as against the other Member States, as part              Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
of a national monopoly of a commercial character,                     Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
exclusive import and export rights in the electricity                 Murray, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet,
industry, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
obligations under Articles 30 , 34 and 37 of the EC Treaty            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 1997, in
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho             which it :
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General ; H.                1 . dismisses the application;
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it:                             2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           to pay the costs;
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           Northern Ireland, and Ireland, as interveners, to bear
2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities                      their own costs .
     to pay the costs;
                                                                      (') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, the French Republic and Ireland, as
     interveners, to bear their own costs .
(') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 23 October 1997
                                                                      in Case C- 15 0/95 : Portuguese Republic v. Commission of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the European Communities supported by the Council of
                        of 23 October 1997                                                  the European Union (')
in Case C-159/94: Commission               of the European            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC)
Communities, supported by United           Kingdom of Great           No 307/95 — Oil seeds — Final regional reference
Britain and Northern Ireland v.              French Republic,         amounts — Exclusion of Portuguese producers from the
                      supported by Ireland (')                        benefit of compensatory adjustments for overshoots and
                                                                      non-utilization in the Community as a whole — Action
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligatons —                                            for annulment)
  Exclusive rights to import and export gas and electricity)
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/04 )
                           ( 97/C 387/03 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
 In   Case    C-159/94 :      Commission    of  the   European        In Case C-150/95 : Portuguese Republic ( Counsel :
 Communities ( Agents : Richard B. Wainwright and                     Professor João Mota de Campos, Agent: Luis Fernandes )
 Hendrik van Lier ), supported by United Kingdom of Great             v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
 Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll,                Antonio Caeiro and Gerard Rozet ), supported by the
 assisted by David Anderson ) v. French Republic ( Agents:            Council of the European Union (Agents : Jan-Peter Hix
 Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), supported              and Paulo Borges ) — application for the annulment of
 by Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by John             Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 307/95 of 14 February
 D. Cooke and Jennifer Payne ) — application for a                     1995 establishing corrected final regional reference
 declaration that, by establishing exclusive import and               amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza
 export rights for gas and electricity, the French Republic           seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95 marketing year
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 34 and        ( OJ 1995 L 36 , p. 2 ), in so far as it reduces by 20% the


title: Case T-39/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (PUCCI)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/49

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci International (PUCCI)
   (Case T-39/10)
   2010/C 100/74
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba, J. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Emilio Pucci International B.V. (Baarn, The Netherlands)

      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 29 October 2009 in case R 173/2009-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PUCCI”, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 28

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

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registrations of the figurative mark ‘Emidio Tucci’, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 25 and 28; Spanish trade mark registration of the word mark ‘E. Tucci’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark application for the figurative mark ‘Emidio Tucci’, covering inter alia goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 25 and 28.

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that the conditions for the application of this provision are fulfilled, as the earlier trade marks enjoy reputation in Spain in respect of articles related to fashion and the use of a similar sign by a third party would be detrimental to and take unfair advantage of such a reputation.


title: Case T-50/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark METRO KIDS COMPANY — Earlier international figurative mark METRO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — AMC-Representações Têxteis v OHIM — MIP Metro (METRO KIDS COMPANY)
   (Case T-50/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark METRO KIDS COMPANY - Earlier international figurative mark METRO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 101/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda (Taveiro, Portugal) (represented by: V. Caires Soares, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 November 2011 (Case R 2314/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AMC-Representações Têxteis Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.


title: Case C-408/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  23 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations — Breach of Community legislation on the right of residence of citizens of the Union — National legislation and administrative practice relating to the requirement of sufficient personal resources and the issuing of orders to leave the territory of the Member State concerned)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-408/03) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Breach of Community legislation on the right of residence of citizens of the Union - National legislation and administrative practice relating to the requirement of sufficient personal resources and the issuing of orders to leave the territory of the Member State concerned)
   (2006/C 143/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and D. Martin, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits, Agent,)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson, Agent, and by E. Sharpston QC)

   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Community legislation on the right of residence of citizens of the Union — National legislation and administrative practice concerning the condition of possession of sufficient personal resources and the issue of orders to leave the territory
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Declares that

                           (a)

                           by excluding the income of a partner residing in the host Member State in the absence of an agreement concluded before a notary and containing an assistance clause, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 EC and Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence when applying that directive to nationals of a Member State who wish to rely on their rights under that directive and on Article 18 EC,

                           (b)

                           by making provision for automatic service of an order to leave Belgian territory on citizens of the Union who do not produce within the prescribed period the documents required to obtain a residence permit, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 90/364, Article 4 of Council Directive 68/360/EEC, Article 4 of Council Directive 73/148/EEC, Article 2 of Council Directive 93/96/EEC and Article 2 of Council Directive 90/365/EEC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-334/01: Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
16.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/17
—      grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       figures for its claims;
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
—      order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                   the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                                ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
                                                                                2000;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (1) and
91/482/EEC (2) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local auth-
orities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of the                   Applicant for the Com-        Chassot AG
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus                 munity trade mark:
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he
                                                                          The Community trade           the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
                                                                          mark applied for:             goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)
smallholders in French Polynesia.
                                                                          Proprietor of the trade-      the applicant
( 1) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
                                                                          mark right opposed in
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          the opposition proceed-
     Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1).                            ings:
(2) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          Trade-mark right oppo-        the German verbal mark ‘HIPPO-
     Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).                            sed:                          VIT’ for goods in Class 31
                                                                                (feedingstuffs)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-
de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office                    Grounds of claim:             —     infringement of Articles 8
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                                                         and 15 of Regulation (EC)
                             and Designs)                                                                     No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                —     misinterpretation of Arti-
                           (Case T-334/01)                                                                    cle 15 of the regulation;
                                                                                —     violation of the right to a fair
                            (2002/C 68/30)                                                                    hearing;
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                      —     infringement of the first and
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has                                             second       sentences        of
                                                                                Article 74(1) of the regu-
                         been drafted: German)
                                                                                lation;
                                                                                —     infringement of Article 73 of
                                                                                the regulation.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen                     (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).


title: Case T-665/13: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2015  — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark ‘SPIN BINGO’  — Earlier Community word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’  — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/22

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)
   (Case T-665/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ‘SPIN BINGO’ - Earlier Community word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 089/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gamepoint BV (The Hague, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2013 (Case R 1388/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Gamepoint BV.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action of Zitro IP Sàrl.

               2.

               Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.