title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-14/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): ATRAL SA v Belgian State, (Free movement of goods — Alarm systems and networks — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Interpretation of Directives 73/23/EEC, 89/336/EEC and 1999/5/EEC — Compatibility of national legislation making marketing subject to a prior approval procedure)

text:
C 146/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.6.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the
                                                                                harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to
                                                                                electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           limits, as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July
                                                                                1993 amending Directives 87/404/EEC (simple pressure
                                                                                vessels), 88/378/EEC (safety of toys), 89/106/EEC (construc-
                           of 8 May 2003                                           tion products), 89/336/EEC (electromagnetic compatibility),
                                                                                89/392/EEC (machinery), 89/686/EEC (personal protective
                                                                                equipment), 90/384/EEC (non-automatic weighing instru-
in Case C-14/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           ments), 90/385/EEC (active implantable medicinal devices),
     the Conseil d’État): ATRAL SA v Belgian State, ( 1)                           90/396/EEC (appliances burning gaseous fuels), 91/263/EEC
                                                                                (telecommunications terminal equipment), 92/42/EEC (new
                                                                                hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels) and 73/
(Free movement of goods — Alarm systems and networks —                             23/EEC (electrical equipment designed for use within certain
Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Interpretation                        voltage limits), Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989
of Directives 73/23/EEC, 89/336/EEC and 1999/5/EEC —                               on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Compatibility of national legislation making marketing                             to electromagnetic compatibility, as amended by Directive 93/
             subject to a prior approval procedure)                                68, and Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                                of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment
                                                                                and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual
                          (2003/C 146/20)                                          recognition of their conformity are applicable to alarm systems
                                                                                and networks, in particular to those which use radio trans-
                                                                                mission. In the fields covered by those directives, national
                    (Language of the case: French)                                 provisions governing the same field must necessarily conform to
                                                                                the abovementioned directives.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            2.    Article 3 of Directive 73/23, as amended, Article 5 of Directive
                                                                                89/336, as amended, and Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 1999/
                                                                                5 preclude national provisions, such as those at issue in the
                                                                                main proceedings, which make subject to a prior approval
                                                                                procedure the placing on the market of alarm systems and
In Case C-14/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                       networks which satisfy the requirements of those directives and
by the Conseil d’État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the                    which bear the appropriate ‘CE’ marking.
proceedings pending before that court between ATRAL SA
and Belgian State, on the interpretation of Articles 28 and 30
EC, of Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on                    3.    Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as meaning that
the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to                         even in the absence of harmonising Community measures,
electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage                       products lawfully produced and marketed in a Member State
limits (OJ 1973 L 77, p. 29), as amended by Council Directive                      must be able to be marketed in another Member State without
93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 amending Directives 87/404/EEC                           being subject to additional controls. In order to be justified,
(simple pressure vessels), 88/378/EEC (safety of toys), 89/106/                    national legislation imposing such controls must be covered by
EEC (construction products), 89/336/EEC (electromagnetic                           one of the exceptions provided for in Article 30 EC or one of
compatibility), 89/392/EEC (machinery), 89/686/EEC (per-                           the overriding requirements recognised by the case-law of the
sonal protective equipment), 90/384/EEC (non-automatic                             Court and, in either case, must be appropriate for securing the
weighing instruments), 90/385/EEC (active implantable med-                         attainment of that objective and not go beyond what is necessary
icinal devices), 90/396/EEC (appliances burning gaseous fuels),                    in order to attain it.
91/263/EEC (telecommunications terminal equipment), 92/
42/EEC (new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous
fuels) and 73/23/EEC (electrical equipment designed for use                  4.    It is for the Member State which claims to have a reason
within certain voltage limits) (OJ 1993 L 220, p. 1), of Council                   justifying a restriction on the free movement of goods to
Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation                            demonstrate specifically the existence of a reason relating to the
of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic                       public interest, the necessity for the restriction in question and
compatibility (OJ 1989 L 139, p. 19), as amended by Directive                      that the restriction is proportionate in relation to the objective
93/68, and of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament                       pursued.
and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment
and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual
recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President              (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it
has ruled:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 October 1996 in Case T-266/94: Foreningen af Jernskibs- og Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (State aids - Shipbuilding - Exceptional rules - Shipyards in the former German Democratic Republic)

text:
23 . 11 . 96          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354 /25
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Denmark ), 0rskov Christensens Staalskibsværft A/S,
                     of 16 October 1996                             established in Frederikshavn ( Denmark ), Aarhus Flydedok
                                                                    A/S , established in Århus ( Denmark ), represented by
in Case T-378/94: Josephus Knijff v. Court of Auditors of           Jan-Erik Svensson , of the Copenhagen Bar, with an address
                the European Communities (')                        for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
(Officials — Members of the temporary staff recruited in            Dupont, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
consultation with the National Audit Institutions —                 Kingdom of Denmark ( Agent : Peter Biering ), against
           Application of the rules on their grading)               Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Anders
                         ( 96/C 354/49 )                            Christian Jessen and Ben Smulders ), supported by the
                                                                    Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd
                                                                    Kloke and , at the hearing, Michael Schütte ) and MTW
                (Language of the case: French)                      Schiffswerft GmbH ( formerly Meerestechnik Werft ),
                                                                    established in Wismar ( Germany ), represented by
In Case T-378/94 : Josephus Knijff, formerly a member of            Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch , Rechtsanwälte ,
the temporary staff of the Court of Auditors of the                 Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities, residing at Assenois ( Belgium ),             Chambers of Francois Turk , 13B Avenue Guillaume —
represented by Jean-Paul Noesen , of the Luxembourg Bar,            application for annulment, in whole or in part, of the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's           Commission decision of 1 1 May 1 994 on the payment of the
Chambers at 18 , rue des Glacis v. Court of Auditors of the         second tranche of State aid to MTW Schiffswerft GmbH,
European Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Sténier, Jan             formerly Meerestechnik Werft — the Court of First Instance
Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) — application for annulment            (Third Chamber , Extended Composition ), composed of
of the decision of 9 February 1994 refusing to adjust the           C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh , A.
applicant's grading, and of the decision of 29 August 1994          Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant — the            Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K.          22 October 1996 , in which it:
Lenaerts , President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
judgment on 16 October 1996 , the operative part of which
is as follows :
                                                                    2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs ofthe proceedings,
 1 . The application is dismissed.                                       including the costs incurred by the intervener, MTW;
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                    3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the
                                                                         Kingdom of Denmark to bear their own costs.
 (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 22 October 1996
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 in Case T-266/94 : Foreningen af Jernskibs- og                                          of 22 October 1996
 Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen and
                                                                     in Case T-330/94 : Salt Union Ltd . v. Commission of the
    Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                                European Communities (')
 (State aids — Shipbuilding — Exceptional rules —
    Shipyards in the former German Democratic Republic)              (State aid — Refusal of the Commission to propose
                                                                      'appropriate measures ' pursuant to Article 93 (1) of the
                            96/ C 354/50
                                                                          Treaty — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/51
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 In Case T-266/94 : Foreningen af Jernskibs- og
 Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen,
 established in Copenhagen, Assens Skibsværft A/S,                   In Case T-330/94 : Salt Union Ltd ., established in Cheshire
 established in Assens ( Denmark ), Burmeister & Wain                ( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig
 Skibsværft A/S , established in Copenhagen, Danyard A/S ,           Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 established in Frederikshavn ( Denmark ), Fredericia                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden , 8
 Skibsværft A/S , established in Fredericia ( Denmark ),             Boulevard Royal, supported by Verein Deutsche
 Odense Staalskibsværft A/S, established in Odense                    Salzindustrie eV, established in Bonn ( Germany ),
  ( Denmark ), Svendborg Værft A/S, established in Svendborg         represented by Thomas Jestaedt, Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf,


title: Case C-332/08: Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/9

         Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-332/08)
   (2008/C 272/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/107/EC expired on 15 February 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, that directive still had not been fully transposed into national law.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 23, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 1999 in Joined Cases C-171/98, C-201/98 and C-202/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 - Freedom to provide services - Maritime transport)

text:
18.12.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 366/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (C-201/98 and C-202/98) in such a
                                                                                way as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory access by
                                                                                Community nationals to the cargo shares due to Belgium and
                          (First Chamber)                                       Luxembourg or to denounce those agreements, the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium (C-171/98 and C-201/98) and the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg (C-202/98) have failed to fulfil their obligations
                      of 14 September 1999                                      under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December
                                                                                1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to
                                                                                maritime transport between Member States and between Member
in Joined Cases C-171/98, C-201/98 and C-202/98: Com-                           States and third countries, in particular Articles 3 and 4(1)
mission of the European Communities v Kingdom of                                thereof with respect to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic
        Belgium and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg(1)                                of Côte d’Ivoire and Article 5 thereof with respect to the Republic
                                                                                of Mali and the Togolese Republic;
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC)                          2. In Cases C-171/98 and C-201/98, orders the Kingdom of
No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services — Maritime                             Belgium to pay the costs and, in Case C-202/98, orders the
                              transport)                                        Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                          (1999/C 366/04)                                  (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Joined Cases C-171/98, C-201/98 and C-202/98: Com-
                                                                                of 16 September 1999
mission of the European Communities (Agents: Frank Benyon
and Bernard Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium (C-171/98
and C-201/98) (Agent: Jan Devadder) and Grand Duchy of                     in Case C-392/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Luxembourg (C-202/98) (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — appli-                     the Bundesgerichtshof): Appeal procedure concerning the
cations for declarations that, by concluding and maintaining               creation of a supplementary protection certificate for
in force the agreements containing cargo-sharing arrangements              medicinal products introduced by Farmitalia Carlo Erba
with the Togolese Republic (C-171/98 and C-202/98) and the                                                   Srl(1)
Republic of Mali (C-201/98 and C-202/98) and by failing
either to adjust the agreements with the Republic of Senegal               (Proprietary medicinal products — Supplementary protec-
and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (C-201/98 and C-202/98) in                                            tion certificate)
such a way as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory
access by Community nationals to the cargo shares due to                                               (1999/C 366/05)
Belgium and Luxembourg or to denounce those agreements,
the Kingdom of Belgium (C-171/98 and C-201/98) and the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (C-202/98) have failed to fulfil                                     (Language of the case: German)
their obligations under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86
of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport between Member States               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986                                          in the European Court Reports)
L 378, p. 1), in particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof with
respect to the Republic of Senegal and the Republic of Côte                In Case C-392/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
d’Ivoire and Article 5 thereof with respect to the Republic of             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichts-
Mali and the Togolese Republic — the Court (First Chamber),                hof, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal proceed-
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Ed-                 ings brought before that court by Farmitalia Carlo Erba Srl —
ward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advo-              on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of Council
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the
14 September 1999, in which it:                                            creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
                                                                           products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1. Declares that, by concluding and maintaining in force the               composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
     agreements containing cargo-sharing arrangements with the             P. Jann, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and
     Togolese Republic (C-171/98 and C-202/98) and the Republic            L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     of Mali (C-201/98 and C-202/98) and by failing either to              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     adjust the agreements with the Republic of Senegal and the            16 September 1999, in which it has ruled:


title: Action brought on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-121/97)

text:
31 . 5 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 166/7
Appeals Board ) of 12 March 1997, which was received at               of Justice, the latter must nevertheless begin
the Court Registry on 20 March 1997, for a preliminary                implementation of the judgment without delay and
ruling in the proceedings brought by Laura Pitkaranta,                conclude it as soon as possible .
represented by her legal guardian Anne Pitkaranta , on the
following questions :                                                 The application for determination of a penalty payment is
                                                                      based on Article 171 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty. The
1 . ( Question 1 is the same as Question 1 in Case C- 9/              Commission justifies the amount of the penalty by
     97 H )                                                           reference to its calculation method set out in Official
                                                                      Journal No C 242 of 21 . 8 . 1996, p. 6 . In evaluating the
2 . Is it contrary, with respect in particular to a minor             severity of the infringement, it proceeds on the basis that
     who regularly lives with her guardian in the Helsinki            only a single provision in a single Bundesland does not yet
     region about 70 kilometres by road from the                      comply with Council Directive 79/409/EEC ( 2 ), and that
     operational centre of the farm and who cannot herself            the infringement is essentially procedural , since there are
     carry on agriculture on the farm and whose guardian              no known cases of environmental damage arising from
     does not do so either on her own account, to the                 application of the rules currently in force in the Saarland
     prohibition of discrimination, the principle of                  ( Coefficient 1 /20 ). The Commission regards the period of
     proportionality or other principles to be observed in            treaty infringement as very considerable ( Coefficient 2/3 ).
     Community law to exclude her from the compensation               Concerning the deterrent effect of the penalty applied for,
     in question ?                                                    the Commission uses a calculation formula notified to the
                                                                      Member States, whereby reference is made to the relative
o OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 15 .                                 position of each Member State in relation to its gross
                                                                      domestic product and its weighted voting strength in the
                                                                      Council under Article 148 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                      o [ 1990] ECR 1-2721 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p . 1 .
Action brought on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                            of Germany
                        ( Case C-121 /97 )
                          ( 97/C 166/ 11 )
                                                                      Action brought on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                                of Germany
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of                                               ( Case C-122/97 )
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                                                 ( 97/C 166/ 12 )
Hausen, Legal Adviser to the Commission, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos
Gomez de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's Legal                  An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                      Communities on 24 March 1997 by the Commission of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                      Hausen, Legal Adviser to the Commission, with an
— declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos
     its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty for           Gomez de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's Legal
     failing to bring the Hunting Law of the Saarland into            Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
     C-288/88 Commission v. Germany ('),                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                      — declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
     Commission a penalty of ECU 26 400 (to Account
     H 1 KEG 'EC Own Resources', Bundeskasse Bonn ) for
                                                                             its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty for
                                                                             failing to comply with the judgment of the Court of
     each day of non-compliance with the obligations in
                                                                             Justice in Case C-58/89 Commission v. Germany ( 1 ),
     the first indent above, as from the date judgment is
     delivered,
                                                                      — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                           Commission a penalty of ECU 158 400 ( to Account
     costs .                                                                 H 1 KEG ' EC Own Resources ', Bundeskasse Bonn ) for
                                                                             each day of non-compliance with the obligations in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the first indent above , as from the date judgment is
                                                                             delivered,
Whilst Article 171 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty does not lay down
a specific time-limit for the Member State concerned to               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
fulfil its obligations arising under a judgment of the Court                 costs .


title: Appeal brought on 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-278/95 P)

text:
No C 268/ 16             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker                     the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and Volker
Lenz, represented by Jiirgen Schlacht, Rechtsanwalt, of                 — set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the
Schliiterstrafêe 22 III, D-20146 Hamburg.                                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                            8 June 1995 in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,
The appellants claim that the Court should :                                supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities,
— set aside the order of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
      First Instance of 14 June 1995 in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,         — consequently, annul Articles 1 ( c ) and 2 of Commission
      T-464/93 and T-470/93 , disqualify Judge K. Lenaerts                  Decision 92/483/EEC of 24 June 1992 concerning aid
      from sitting as the President of the Fourth Chamber of                provided by the Brussels Regional Authorities ( Belgium )
      the Court of First Instance and, in addition, decide Cases            in favour of the activities of Siemens SA in the
      T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 in accordance with                   data-processing and telecommunications sectors,
      the forms of order sought in each of those cases (*).
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
                                                                            proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of
Pleas in law and arguments adduced in support:                              First Instance in Case T-459/93 .
— The contested order of the Court of First Instance was
      made in breach of the Rules of Procedure . Under                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Article 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of
      Justice of the European Communities, the Court of                 Errors of law, in particular the fact that the Court of First
                                                                        Instance examined whether the contested aid constituted
      Justice should have decided to disqualify Judge Lenaerts
      and to exclude him from taking part in the contested              investment aid within the meaning applied to that term in
      order, by reason of his extensive involvement in the              Community law, instead of verifiying, as it should have
      earlier proceedings concerning the same matter.                   done, whether such aid fell within the substantive scope of
                                                                        the Belgian Law of 1959 ' introducing and coordinating
— The contested order wrongly dismissed the actions on                  measures to encourage economic expansion and the
      the ground that they were time-barred. Contrary to the            creation of new industries', as construed in Belgian law and
      assumption made in the judgment, no administrative                as approved by the Commission .
      procedure took place pursuant to Articles 90 or 9 1 of the
      Staff Regulations in relation to the applicants' claims .
      Such an administrative procedure was not required,
      since the appellants, who are not officials, are asserting
      claims in tort which, although connected with the social          Action brought on 18 August 1995 by the Commission of
      welfare of Community officials, are not subject to the              the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      rules of procedure governing claims by officials.
                                                                                ( Case C-280/95 )
i 1 ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , p . 11 ;                                                        ( 95/C 268/36 )
      OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 4 ;
      OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 , p . 10,                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         18 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Anders C.
                                                                        Jessen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Appeal brought on 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA against                   for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de
the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the Second                      la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
           Commission of the European Communities                        — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty, by failing to adopt the
                          ( Case C-278/95 P )                                measures necessary to comply with Commission
                             ( 95/C 268/35 )                                 Decision 93/496/EEC of 9 June 1993 concerning State
                                                                             aid procedure C 32/92 (ex NN 67/92 ) — Italy C ) (tax
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by                  credit for professional road hauliers ) and in particular by
 the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    failing to recover, with effect from the tax year 1992, the
 European Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens                       aid unlawfully introduced by the Ministerial Decree of
 SA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the                   28 January 1992 in favour of professional road hauliers
 Commission of the European Communities was brought                          in Italy in the form of a tax credit on income tax or on
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  municipal tax or on VAT,
 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA, represented by Michel
 Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn, of the                 — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case C-430/04: Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Finanzamt Eisleben v Feuerbestattungsverein Halle eV (Sixth VAT Directive — Possibility of relying on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) — Activities engaged in by a private taxable person in competition with a public authority — Body governed by public law — Treatment as a non-taxable person in respect of activities engaged in as a public authority)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/2

         Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Finanzamt Eisleben v Feuerbestattungsverein Halle eV
   (Case C-430/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Possibility of relying on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) - Activities engaged in by a private taxable person in competition with a public authority - Body governed by public law - Treatment as a non-taxable person in respect of activities engaged in as a public authority)
   (2006/C 178/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Eisleben

      Defendant: Feuerbestattungsverein Halle eV

      Joined party: Lutherstadt Eisleben
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxation of public bodies in respect of activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities where their non-taxation would lead to significant distortions of competition — Possibility for a taxable private-law association to rely on that provision where it is operating a crematorium in competition with a municipality carrying on a similar activity that is exempt or taxed more advantageously
   Operative part of the judgement
   A private person who is in competition with a body governed by public law and alleges that that body is, in respect of the activities in which it engages as a public authority, treated as a non-taxable person for value added tax purposes or undertaxed is entitled to rely, before the national court, on the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment in proceedings, such as the main proceedings, between a private person and the national tax authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-494/08 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Word mark PRANAHAUS — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-494/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Word mark PRANAHAUS — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
   2010/C 63/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Prana Haus GmbH (represented by: N. Hebeis, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 April 2007 dismissing the appeal against the Examiner's decision to refuse registration of the word mark PRANAHAUS for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 35 — Descriptive character of the mark

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Prana Haus GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 71, 20.3.2004

text:
C 85/30         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         3.4.2004
                                                          III
                                                       (Notices)
                                                   (2004/C 85/59)
               Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
        OJ C 71, 20.3.2004
        Past publications
        OJ C 59, 6.3.2004
        OJ C 47, 21.2.2004
        OJ C 35, 7.2.2004
        OJ C 21, 24.1.2004
        OJ C 7, 10.1.2004
        OJ C 304, 13.12.2003
                                             These texts are available on:
                                        EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                         CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-164/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2012 — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2012 — DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte
   (Case C-164/12)
   2012/C 217/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 43 EC (or Article 49 TFEU) for a national provision to provide that, in the event of the contribution of partnership interests to a capital company, the business assets contributed must be assessed at their value as part of a going concern (and consequently, as a result of revealing undisclosed reserves, a capital gain arises for the transferor) where at the time of the non-cash contribution the Federal Republic of Germany has no right to tax in relation to the gain on the sale of the new company shares granted to the transferor in return for the contribution?

               2.

               In the event that the first question must be answered in the negative: is the national provision compatible with Article 43 EC (or Article 49 TFEU) if the transferor is entitled to apply for the deferment, on an interest-free basis, of the tax arising as a consequence of revealing the undisclosed reserves, with the effect that the tax due on the gain may be paid in annual instalments, each of at least a fifth of the tax due, provided that the payment of the instalments is secured?


title: Action brought on 28 June 1993 by Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-62/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/9
Action brought on 28 June 1993 by Hanseatische                            The pleas in law and main arguments were the subject of an
Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH against the Commission of                    information notice in Official Journal No C 222 of
                 the European Communities                                 18 August 1993 , p. 10.
                           ( Case C-62/95 )
                             ( 95/C 137/15 )                              (!) OJ No L 144 , 16 . 6 . 1993 , p . 21 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 .
The action brought by Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
GmbH against the Commission of the European
Communities ( Case C-335/93 ), which was referred to the
Court of First Instance by order of the Court of Justice of
27 September 1993 pursuant to Article 4 of Council
Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993                         Action brought on 10 March 1995 by the Italian Republic
amending Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom                           against the Commission of the European Communities
establishing a Court of First Instance of the European                                               ( Case C-69/95 )
Communities ( l ), became pending before the Court of                                                  ( 95/C 137/17 )
Justice on 8 March 1995 , following an order of the Court of
First Instance declining jurisdiction over the action, which
had been registered at the Court of First Instance as Case                An action against the Commission of the European
T-488/93 , and remitting it to the Court of Justice, so that               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
that Court can rule on the present action together with Case               European Communities on 10 March 1995 by the Italian
 C-329/93 ( 2 ).                                                           Republic, represented by Umberto Leanza , acting as Agent,
                                                                           assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
                                                                           Rue Marie-Adelaide .
The pleas in law and main arguments were the subject of an
 information notice in Official Journal No C 222 of
 18 August 1993 , p. 9 .                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           — annul Commission Decision 94/ 871 /EC of 21 December
 (') OJ No L 144 , 16 . 6 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                      1994 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 .                                    Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1991 of
                                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund ( EAGGF ) Guarantee Section, in so far as it holds
                                                                                the sum of Lit 103 161 493 560 presented for clearance
                                                                                by the Italian Republic not chargeable to the
                                                                                EAGGF,
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Action brought on 1 July 1993 by Bremer Vulkan Verbund
 AG against the Commission of the European                                  Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1 , 3 and 5 of
                                Communities                                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 ( x ), of Article 8 of
                             ( Case C-63/95 )                               Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1723/72 (2 ), and of the
                               ( 95/C 137/16 )
                                                                            rules governing the milk sector ( Article 4 of Council
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( 3 ) as amended ; Commission
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 (4 )). Misuse of powers .
                                                                            Failure to state reasons : Italy has fully complied with
 The action brought by Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG against                     Community rules on the repurchase of quotas by
  the Commission of the European Communities ( Case                         suspending their reallocation, in full accordance with
  C-3 39/93 ), which was referred to the Court of First Instance            Community objectives, as a result of the extraordinary
  by order of the Court of Justice of 27 September 1993                     situation which the country is still facing. During 1991 , and
  pursuant to Article 4 of Council Decision 93/350/Euratom,                 thus coinciding with the time for the reallocation of
  ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993 amending Council Decision                        repurchased quotas fixed by Community rules at 1 June
  88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First                   1991 , a major discrepancy began to appear between actual
  Instance of the European Communities (*), became pending                  milk production and the national guaranteed quantity.
  before the Court of Justice on 8 March 1995 , following an                Then in February 1992, when the scale of the problem had
  order of the Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction               become clearer, Italy informed the Commission of the
  over the action, which had been registered at the Court of                situation, thereby initiating negotiations for an increase in
  First Instance as Case T-490/93 , and remitting it to the                 its overall reference quantity (which has recently been
  Court of Justice, so that that Court can rule on the present              granted with limited retroactive effect). In December 1992,
  action together with Case C-329/93 ( 2 ).                                 when the Council of EEC Agriculture Ministers reached a


title: Case T-441/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  — IVG Immobilien AG v OHIM

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/41

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 — IVG Immobilien AG v OHIM
   (Case T-441/05)
   (2006/C 60/80)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: IVG Immobilien AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by A. Okonek and U. Karpenstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2005 in Case R 559/2004-4 concerning Community trade mark application No 2 927 788 and order the defendant to register the ‘I’ mark for all goods and services applied for;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative ‘I’ mark for services in Classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 42 and 43 — Application No 2 927 788

      Decision of the Examiner: Dismissal of the application for all services applied for

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, on the ground that the Board of Appeal overestimated the requirements for the distinctive character of letters. In addition it is incorrect that the stylised graphic representation of the large 'I' in Königsblau is without evocative force for the relevant public.


title: Case C-277/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)) — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA (Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Entitlement to paid annual leave — Sick leave — Annual leave coinciding with sick leave — Entitlement to take annual leave at another time)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid (Spain)) — Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA
   (Case C-277/08) (1)

   (Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Entitlement to paid annual leave - Sick leave - Annual leave coinciding with sick leave - Entitlement to take annual leave at another time)
   2009/C 267/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francisco Vicente Pereda

      Defendant: Madrid Movilidad SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Employee on sick leave during the period of annual leave allocated by the undertaking as a result of an accident at work which happened before that period of leave began — Right of the worker to take his annual leave during a different period

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or collective agreements which provide that a worker who is on sick leave during a period of annual leave scheduled in the annual leave planning schedule of the undertaking which employs him does not have the right, after his recovery, to take his annual leave at a time other than that originally scheduled, if necessary outside the corresponding reference period.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-415/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc

text:
18.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              2. If the answer to question 1 is that consent may be implied,
                                                                            is consent to be implied from the fact that the goods have
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  been sold by the proprietor or on his behalf without
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  contractual restrictions prohibiting re-sale within the EEA
    Directive 96/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the                binding the first and all subsequent purchasers?
    Council of 28 October 1996 amending Council Directive
    80/777/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
    Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing             3. Where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been
    of natural mineral waters (1), and by failing to notify them            placed on the market in a non-EEA country by the trade
    to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to                mark proprietor:
    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            A. to what extent is it relevant to or determinative of the
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                               issue of whether or not there was consent by the
                                                                                proprietor to the placing of those goods on the market
                                                                                within the EEA, within the meaning of the Directive,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  that:
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                       (a) the person placing the goods on the market (not
Case C-386/99 (2); the period prescribed in Article 2 of the                         being an authorised retailer) does so with the
directive expired on 28 October 1997.                                                knowledge that he is the lawful owner of the goods
                                                                                and the goods bear no indication that they may
                                                                                not be placed on the market in the EEA; and/or
(1) OJ L 299 of 23.11.1996, p. 26.
(2) OJ C 366, 18.12.1999, p. 20.
                                                                                (b) the person placing the goods on the market
                                                                                (not being an authorised retailer) does so with
                                                                                knowledge that the trade mark proprietor objects
                                                                                to those goods being placed on the market within
                                                                                the EEA, and/or
                                                                                (c) the person placing the goods on the market (not
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                              being an authorised retailer) does so with the
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent                                 knowledge that the trade mark proprietor objects
Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case                          to them being placed on the market by anyone
of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under                            otherwise than an authorised retailer; and/or
the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss
   (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc                         (d) the goods have been purchased from authorised
                                                                                retailers in a non-EEA country who have been
                         (Case C-415/99)                                             informed by the proprietor that the proprietor
                                                                                objects to the sale of the goods by them for the
                                                                                purposes of resale, but who have not imposed
                          (2000/C 79/10)                                             upon purchasers from them any contractual restric-
                                                                                tions on the manner in which the goods may be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               disposed of; and/or
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),                     (e) the goods have been purchased from authorised
of 22 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on                         wholesalers in non-EEA country, who have been
29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1)                          informed by the proprietor that the goods were to
Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws                         be sold to retailers in that non-EEA country and
of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against                       were not to be sold for export, but who have
1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc, on the following                               not imposed upon purchasers from them any
questions:                                                                           contractual restrictions on the manner in which
                                                                                the goods may be disposed of; and/or
1. Where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been
    placed on the market in a non-EEA country by the trade
    mark proprietor or with his consent and those goods have                     (f) there has or has not been communication by the
    been imported into or sold in the EEA by a third party, is                       proprietor to all subsequent purchasers of its goods
    the effect of Directive 89/104/EEC(1) (‘the Directive’) that                     (i.e. those between the first purchaser from the
    the trade mark proprietor is entitled to prohibit such                           proprietor and the person placing the goods on the
    importation or sale unless he has expressly and explicitly                       market in the EEA) of its objection to the sale of
    consented to it, or may such consent be implied?                                 the goods for the purposes of resale; and/or
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/6                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
          (g) a contractual restriction has or has not been            the Court Registry on 20 December 1999, for a preliminary
              imposed by the proprietor and made legally bind-         ruling in the case of Georg and Helga Heininger against
              ing upon the first purchaser prohibiting sale for        Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the following
              the purposes of resale to anyone other than the          questions:
              ultimate consumer.
                                                                       1. Does Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985
     B. does the issue of whether or not there was consent by               to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
          the proprietor to the placing of those goods on the               away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31 —
          market within the EEA. within the meaning of the                  ‘directive on doorstep-selling’ also cover mortgages on
          Directive, depend on some further or other factor or              land (S.3(2)(2) of the Verbraucherkreditgesetz — consumer
          factors, and if so which?                                         credit law) and, as regards the right of cancellation provided
                                                                            for in Article 5, does it take precedence over Council
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to               Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade             approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
    marks (OJ L 40 of 11. 2.1 989, p. 1).                                   provisions of the Member States concerning consumer
                                                                            credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48 ‘consumer-credit directive’)?
                                                                       2. If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative,
                                                                            Is the national legislature precluded by the directive on
                                                                            doorstep-selling from applying the time-limit placed in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                     S. 7(2)(3) of the consumer credit law on the right of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent                        cancellation also in cases where the subject-matter of a
Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case                 doorstep transaction was the grant of a mortgage loan
of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under                   within the meaning of S. 3(2)(2) of the consumer credit
the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss                      law and where the disclosure of information, as provided
                 (UK) Ltd against Costco UK Ltd                             for in Article 4 of the directive, was not made?
                           (Case C-416/99)
                            (2000/C 79/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),           Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission
of 22 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on           of the European Communities against the French Republic
29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1)
Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws                                     (Case C-483/99)
of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against
Costco UK Ltd on questions which are identical to those in
                                                                                (2000/C 79/13)
Case   C-415/99 (1),   1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Strauss (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc.         Court of Justice on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
(1) See p. 5 of this Official journal.
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       (1) declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 2(1) and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                   (2)(iii) of Decree 93-1298 of 13 December 1993, accord-
hof by order of that court of 30 November 1999 in the                       ing to which the following rights attach to the ‘golden
case of Georg and Helga Heininger against Bayerische                        share’ held by the French State in the State company
                   Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG                                 Elf-Aquitaine:
                           (Case C-481/99)                                  (a) any shareholding which exceeds the ceilings applying
                                                                                to the direct or indirect holding by a natural or legal
                            (2000/C 79/12)                                       person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, of
                                                                                one tenth, one fifth or one third of the capital of, or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           voting rights in, the company must first be approved
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                           by the Minister for Economic Affairs (Article 2(1) of
(Federal Supreme Court) of 30 November 1999, received at                         the Decree);


title: Case T-211/14: Action brought on 3 April 2014 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/16

         Action brought on 3 April 2014 — Klement v OHIM — Bullerjan (Form of an oven)
   (Case T-211/14)
   2014/C 245/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Toni Klement (Dippolddiswalde, Germany) (represented by: J. Weiser, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bullerjan GmbH (Isernhagen-Kirchhorst, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 927/2013-1, so that the appeal brought by the applicant is upheld and CTM 3 7 23  822 is revoked in its entirety;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM, and as the case may be, the CTM proprietor/possible intervener to pay the costs for these proceedings and of the appeal procedure before OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Three-dimensional mark representing an oven for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 3 7 23  822

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

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for revocation

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Joined Cases T-104/07 and T-339/08: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — BVGD v Commission (Competition — Agreements and abuse of a dominant position — Rough diamond market — ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution — Decision rejecting a complaint — No Community interest — Legal basis — Procedural rights of a complainant — Access to documents — Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint — Market foreclosure effects — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — BVGD v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-104/07 and T-339/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements and abuse of a dominant position - Rough diamond market - ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) system of distribution - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest - Legal basis - Procedural rights of a complainant - Access to documents - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Market foreclosure effects - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 252/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented: initially by L. Levi and C. Ronzi and, in Case T-104/07, by G. Vandersanden, and subsequently by L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and J. Bourke, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents, and, in Case T-104/07, initially by S. Drakakakis, lawyer, and by T. Soames, Solicitor, and subsequently by T. Soames, and, in Case T-339/08, by T. Soames)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: De Beers (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and De Beers UK Ltd, formerly The Diamond Trading Co. Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented: initially by W. Allan and S. Horwitz, Solicitors, and subsequently by W. Allan, J. Ysewyn, lawyer, and N. Gràcia Malfeito, Solicitor, and lastly by N. Gràcia Malfeito, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, J. Marchandise, lawyers, and P. Riedel, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Applications for the annulment of the Commission’s Decisions of 26 January 2007 (Case COMP/39.221/B-2 — BVGD/De Beers) and of 5 June 2008 (Case COMP/39.221/E-2 — De Beers/DTC Supplier of Choice) rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the interveners alleging infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC in the rough diamond market through their use of distribution agreements known as ‘Supplier of Choice’ (SOC) arrangements.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (BVGD) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders De Beers and De Beers UK Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-368/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 6 July 2016 — Port of Assens v Navigators Management (UK) Limited
   (Case C-368/16)
   (2016/C 314/18)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Port of Assens

      Defendant: Navigators Management (UK) Limited

      Question referred

   Must Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) be interpreted as meaning that an injured party who is permitted under national law to bring an action directly against the company providing insurance cover for the party which caused the injury is bound by an agreement on jurisdiction validly concluded between the insurer and the policy-holder in accordance with Article 13.5, read in conjunction with Article 14.2(a), of the Regulation on Jurisdiction?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 4 July 1996 in Case C-295/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Hüpeden & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Preserved cultivated mushrooms - Measures of market management)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   No 2163/92 of 30 July 1992 on the levying of the additional
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                               amount provided for by Regulations ( EEC ) No 3429/80,
                                                                       ( EEC ) No 796/81 , and ( EEC ) No 1755/81 adopting
                          of 4 July 1996                               protective measures applicable to imports of preserved
in Case C-295/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  cultivated mushrooms ( 2 ) the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): Hüpeden & Co. KG v.                  composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas ( 1 )                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini and J. L. Murray, Judges;
(Preserved cultivated mushrooms — Measures of market                   F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                            management)                                Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 July
                                                                       1996 , in which it ruled :
                           ( 96/C 336/ 13 )
                                                                       Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2163/92 of
                (Language of the case: German)                         30 July 1992 on the levying of the additional amount
                                                                       provided for by Regulations (EEC) No 3429/80, (EEC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           No 796/81 , and (EEC) No 1755/81 adopting protective
          published in the European Court Reports)                     measures applicable to imports of preserved cultivated
                                                                       mushrooms is invalid as regards the level of the additional
In Case C-295/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  amount set.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
( Finance Court) Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary                 í 1 ) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between            ( 2 ) OJ No L 217, 1992 , p . 16 .
Hüpeden & Co . KG and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1796/81 of
30 June 1981 on measures applicable to imports of
preserved cultivated mushrooms ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and J. L. Murray,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl ,                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                                     of 11 July 1996
on 4 July 1996 , in which it ruled :                                   in Joined Cases C-427/93 , C-429/93 and C-436/93
                                                                       (references for a preliminary ruling from the S0- og
Article 2 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1796/81 of               Handelsret i Kobenhavn and from the Højesteret ):
30 June 1981 on measures applicable to imports of                           Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v. Paranova A/S ( 1 )
preserved cultivated mushrooms is invalid as regards the               (Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the
level of the additional amount set.                                    Member States relating to trade marks — Article 36 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty — Repackaging of trade-marked products)
(') OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 1981 , p . 1 .                                                               ( 96/C 336/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                       In Joined Cases C-427/93 , C-429/93 and C-436/93 :
                          of 4 July 1996                               references to the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC
in Case C-296/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  Treaty by the So- og Handelsret i Kobenhavn ( Maritime and
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): Bernhard Pietsch v.                  Commercial Court of Copenhagen ) ( in Cases C-427/93 and
            Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof ( 1 )                      C-429/93 ) and the Højesteret ( Supreme Court ) ( in Case
        (Preserved mushrooms — Protective measures)                    C-436/93 ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before those courts between Bristol-Myers Squibb
                           ( 96/C 336/14 )
                                                                       and Paranova A/S ( C-427/93 ), and between C. H.
                                                                       Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer
                (Language of the case: German)                         Ingelheim A/S and Paranova A/S ( C-429/93 ), and between
                                                                       Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer Danmark A/S and Paranova
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           A/S ( C-436/93 ), on the interpretation of Article 7 of the first
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Council Directive ( 89/104/EEC ) of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                       approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
In Case C-296/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  marks ( 2 ), and of Article 36 of the EC Treaty, the Court,
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht                    composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
( Finance Court ) Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary                Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
Bernhard Pietsch and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof                   Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,
— on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                     Advocate-General, F. G. Jacobs, for the Registrar : H. von


title: Case C-54/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2016 — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia (Italy) lodged on 29 January 2016 — Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation v Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA
   (Case C-54/16)
   (2016/C 156/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Venezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vinyls Italia SpA, in liquidation

      Defendant: Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘proof’ that Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) requires of the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors, in order to prevent that act from being challenged in accordance with the rules of the lex fori concursus, include a requirement to raise a procedural objection in the strict sense of that term within the periods laid down by the procedural rules of the lex fori, when seeking to rely on the derogation provided in the regulation and to prove that the two conditions laid down by that provision have been met?
               or
               Does Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 apply when the party concerned has requested its application during the proceedings, even when the time limits laid down by the procedural rules of the lex fori for lodging procedural objections have expired, or even where that provision is applied by the court of its own motion, provided that the party concerned has provided proof that the detrimental act is subject to the lex causae of another Member State whose law does not permit the act to be challenged by any means in the specific circumstances of the case?

               2.

               Must the reference to the rules of the lex causae in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, for establishing whether ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case’, be interpreted as meaning that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the lex causae does not provide, in general or in the abstract, any means to challenge an act such as that which, in the present case, was considered detrimental — namely the payment of a contractual debt — or as meaning that the party bearing the burden of proof must show that, where the lex causae allows an act of that type to be challenged, the conditions to be met in order for such a challenge to be upheld in the relevant case, which differ from those of the lex fori concursus, have not actually been fulfilled?

               3.

               Is the derogation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation 1346/2000 — bearing in mind its objective of protecting the legitimate expectations of the parties concerning the stability of the act in accordance with the lex causae — applicable even when the parties to a contract have their head offices in a single Member State, whose law can therefore be expected to be intended to become the lex fori concursus in the event of insolvency on the part of one of those parties, and the parties, via a contractual clause designating the law of another Member State as the law applicable, exclude the setting aside of acts performed under the contract from the application of the mandatory rules of the lex fori concursus imposed in order to protect the principle that all creditors should be treated equally, to the detriment of all the creditors in the event of insolvency?

               4.

               Must Article 1(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘situations involving a conflict of laws’ for the purposes of the application of that regulation also include a situation involving a charter contract concluded in a Member State between companies with their head offices in the same Member State, with a clause designating the law of another Member State as the law applicable?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative, must Article 3(3) of Regulation No 593/2008, read in conjunction with Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000, be interpreted as meaning that where the parties choose to subject a contract to the law of a Member State other than that in which ‘all the other elements relevant to the situation’ are located, that does not affect the application of mandatory rules under the law of the latter Member State, which apply as the lex fori concursus, for the purpose of challenging acts performed before the insolvency to the detriment of all the creditors, thereby prevailing over the derogation provided for in Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000?

      (1)  Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).


title: Case C-402/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 6 August 2010 — Société Groupe Limagrain Holding v FranceAgrimer

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/22

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 6 August 2010 — Société Groupe Limagrain Holding v FranceAgrimer
      (Case C-402/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/37)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Conseil d’Etat

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Société Groupe Limagrain Holding

         Respondent: FranceAgriMer

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the failure, in disregard of the obligations imposed on the warehouse keeper under the Community customs legislation, to keep stock records of products or goods placed under the customs warehousing procedure sufficient to deprive the exporter who has placed his products or his goods in that warehouse of entitlement to the advance payment provided for by the provisions of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 (1) relating to the system of export refunds in conjunction with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/80 of 4 March 1980 on the advance payment of export refunds in respect of agricultural products (2)?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what conclusions should be drawn as regards the sums paid to the recipient?

            In particular:

                  (a)

                  in the event that it is proved that the goods have actually been exported, can the exporter be regarded as having obtained the amount of the refunds relating to those exports, wholly or in part; if in part, is it appropriate to adopt the rates of refunds as pre-established under the regulations relating to advance payment of export refunds or the rates applicable on the date of actual exportation, whether higher or lower than the pre-established rate?

                  (b)

                  in the event that there is an obligation to repay all or part of the sums received, is it appropriate, pursuant to Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 relating to the system of export refunds, to add, to the amount to be repaid as unduly received, the penalty provided for by that article, although the responsibility for keeping stock records rests with the warehouse keeper, where, as in the present case, the customs warehouse is a type C private warehouse maintained by the exporter of the agricultural goods himself?

         (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1)

         (2)  OJ 1980 L 62, p. 5


title: Case T-450/15: Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/44

         Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)
   (Case T-450/15)
   (2015/C 320/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, QC)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘luvoworld’ — Application for registration No 11 244 332

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 1480/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               dismiss AMS’s Opposition;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case F-116/06: Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Buckingham and Others v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/66

         Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Buckingham and Others v Commission
   (Case F-116/06)
   (2006/C 294/131)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Anne Buckingham (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 23 November 2005, published in Administrative Notices No 85-2005, in that it did not allocate any priority points to the applicants, officials in grade A*12, recognising the work carried out in the interests of the institution for 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the express decisions of the Commission rejecting the complaints made by the applicants pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is based on infringement of Articles 9 and 13 of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and, as a subsidiary plea, on the unlawfulness of the said provisions in that they result in discrimination and infringe Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-654/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Gako Konietzko v OHIM (Shape of a cylindrical container in red and white) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark — Shape of a cylindrical container in red and white — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Gako Konietzko v OHIM (Shape of a cylindrical container in red and white)
   (Case T-654/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a cylindrical container in red and white - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gako Konietzko GmbH (Bamberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Reinhardt, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2013 (Case R 2232/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a cylindrical container in red and white as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gako Konietzko GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.