title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-275/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Klagenævnet for Udbud): Unitron Scandinavia A/S, 3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Public supply contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Award of public supply contracts by a body other than a contracting authority)

text:
C 47/8                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.2.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 November 1999
                        of 18 November 1999
in Case C-275/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-149/96: Portuguese Republic v Council of the
the Klagenævnet for Udbud): Unitron Scandinavia A/S,                                                 European Union (1)
3-S A/S, Danske Svineproducenters Serviceselskab v
      Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (1)
                                                                             (Commercial policy — Access to the market in textile
(Public supply contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Award                          products — Products originating in India and Pakistan)
of public supply contracts by a body other than a contracting
                                authority)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/14)
                             (2000/C 47/13)
                     (Language of the case: Danish)                                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-275/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Klagenævnet
for Udbud (Procurement Review Board) (Denmark) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    In Case C-149/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes
court between Unitron Scandinavia A/S, 3-S A/S, Danske                       and C. Botelho Moniz) v Council of the European Union
Svineproducenters Serviceselskab and Ministeriet for Fødevar-                (Agents: S. Kyriakopoulou and I. Lopes Cardoso), supported
er, Landbrug og Fiskeri — on the interpretation of Article 2(2)              by the French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins and G. Mignot)
of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating                  and by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993                 M. de Pauw and F. de Sousa Fialho) — application for annul-
L 199, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                       ment of Council Decision 96/386/EC of 26 February 1996
L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                concerning the conclusion of Memoranda of Understanding
M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   between the European Community and the Islamic Republic
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 1999, in                      of Pakistan and between the European Community and the
which it has ruled:                                                          Republic of India on arrangements in the area of market access
                                                                             for textile products (OJ 1996 L 153, p. 47) — the Court,
1. Article 2(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993               composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Third
     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts        and Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, D.A.O. Edward,
     is independent in scope from the provisions of Council Directive        L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
     92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of               teyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulman, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
     procedures for the award of public service contracts.                   P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio,
                                                                             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
2. Article 2(2) of Directive 93/36 must be interpreted as follows:           Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 November 1999, in
                                                                             which it:
     — It requires a contracting authority which grants to a body
          other than such a contracting authority special or exclusive
                                                                             1. Dismisses the application;
          rights to engage in a public service activity to require of that
          body, in relation to the public supply contracts which it
          awards to third parties in the context of that activity, that it   2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;
          comply with the principle of non-discrimination on grounds
          of nationality.
                                                                             3. Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the European
     — It does not, however, require in those circumstances that the              Communities to bear their own costs.
          contracting authority demand that, in awarding such public
          supply contracts, the body in question comply with the
          tendering procedures laid down by Directive 93/36.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 November 1997 in Case T-71/96: Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Competition based on qualifications and tests - Non-admission to the oral tests)

text:
C 387/ 18                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 12 . 97
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                    3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                   (') OJ C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
Rue de Cessange , v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Florence
Clotuche ) — application for the annulment of a
Commission decision of 9 October 1996 rejecting a review
of the decision on the applicant's classification in grade —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf and J. Pirrung, Judges;                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 November 1997,                                          of 6 November 1997
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         in Case T-15/96: Lino Liao v. Council of the European
                                                                                Union (')
I . the application is dismissed;
                                                                         (Officials — Actions for annulment — Delay in drawing
                                                                         up staff report — Actions for damages — Admissibility —
2 . each party shall hear its own costs.                                                                   Damage)
                                                                                ( 97IC 387/32 )
(') OJ C 94 , 22 . 3 . 1997 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-15/96 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of
                                                                         the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                         Pierre-Paul Gehuchten and Constantin Nikis, of the
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        of 6 November 1997                               the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( Agents: Diego Canga
in Case T-223/95 : Luigi Ronchi v. Commission of the                     Fano and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for
                     European Communities (')                            annulment of the definitive staff report, dated 6 November
 (Officials — Article 90 (1 ) of the Staff Regulations —                  1995 , for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 ,
Decision implicitly rejecting an application — Article 24                notified to the applicant on 9 November 1995 , and for
     of the Staff Regulations — Duty to provide assistance)              damages — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),
                                                                         composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and A.
                              ( 97/C 387/31 )                            Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A.
                                                                         Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 6 November 1997, in which it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1 . dismisses the action;
 In Case T-223/95 : Luigi Ronchi , a former official of the
 Commission of the European Communities, residing in
 Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                     2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Demaseure , Veronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel , of the
 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
 the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
 Cessange , v. Commission of the European Communities
 ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall ) —
 application, first, for annulment of a decision implicitly
 rejecting an application for assistance submitted by the
 applicant on 30 January 1995 and, second, for payment of
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 the token sum of ECU 1 - by way of compensation for the
 non-material damage allegedly suffered by him — the                                              of 6 November 1997
 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                          in Case T-71/96: Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek v.
 C. W. Bellamy, President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
 M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 1997, in                   (Officials — Competition based on qualifications and tests
 which it :                                                                             — Non-admission to the oral tests)
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/33 )
  1 . annuls the Commission 's decision implicitly rejecting
       the application for assistance submitted by the                                      (Language of the case: French)
      applicant on 30 January 1995;
                                                                          In Case T-71 /96 : Sonja Edith Berlingieri Vinzek, a
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                          probationer official of the Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 387/ 19
Communities,          residing at        Sterrebeek      ( Belgium ),      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                                           of 7 November 1997
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 in Case T-2 18/95 : Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' Srl v.
SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the                                   Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and,
                                                                         (Agriculture — Fisheries — Aquaculture and establishment
initially, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and, subsequently,
                                                                         of protected marine areas — Community financial aid —
Florence Clotuche ) — application for annulment of the
decision, dated 26 March 1996, of the selection board in                 Declaration of ineligibility of certain expenditure —
                                                                                Action for annulment — Action for damages)
competition COM/A/955 , by which it decided not to
admit the applicant to the oral test in the competition                                               ( 97/C 387/35 )
and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of
the    initial   decision      of that  selection   board,     dated
16 February 1996 — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Chamber ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and
A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                         In Case T-218/95 : Azienda Agricola ' Le Canne' Sri,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                         established in Porto Viro, Italy, represented by Giulio
                                                                         Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonetto, of
1 . dismisses the action;                                                the Padua Bar, and by Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg
                                                                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to                  latter's Chambers, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v. Commission
     pay one third of the applicant's costs.                             of the European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March
                                                                         and Hubertus Van Vliet ) — application, first, for
(') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                         annulment of the decision by the Commission to reduce
                                                                         Community financial aid originally granted and, secondly,
                                                                         for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant
                                                                         as a result of that reduction — the Court of First Instance
                                                                         ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                         C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                        of 6 November 1997
                                                                         7 November 1997, in which it :
in Case T-101 /96 : Maria Elisabeth Wolf v. Commission of
                  the European Communities (')                           1 . dismisses the action ;
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the
            tests — Professional experience required)                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                            ( 97/C 387/34 )
                                                                         (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                  (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-101 /96 : Maria Elisabeth Wolf, a member of the
auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange , v.                                                  of 7 November 1997
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Julian
Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — application for                       in Case T-84/96: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de Papel
annulment of the decision of the selection board in                          Lda v. Commission of the European Communities (')
competition COM/A/955 not to admit the applicant to
that competition, and for compensation for the non-                      (European Social Fund — Decision to reduce financial
material damage suffered by her as a result of that                          assistance — Duty to provide a statement of reasons)
decision — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                            ( 97/C 387/36 )
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and A.
Kalogeropoulos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
6 November 1997, in which it:
1.   dismisses the action ;                                              In Case T-84/96 : Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de Papel
                                                                         Lda , established in Lisbon, represented by Miguel Ferrão
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          Castelo Branco, then by João Caniço Gomes, both of the
                                                                         Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
(") OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .                                           the Chambers of Francois Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe , v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Maria
                                                                         Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson ) — application for


title: Case T-248/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Doktor v Council (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period — Continuation of probationary period — Report at the end of the probationary period — Article 34 of the Staff Regulations — Distortion of facts and evidence — Obligation on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Doktor v Council
   (Case T-248/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Recruitment - Probationary period - Continuation of probationary period - Report at the end of the probationary period - Article 34 of the Staff Regulations - Distortion of facts and evidence - Obligation on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)
   2010/C 100/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: František Doktor (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2008 in Case F-73/07 Doktor v Council, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking, first, annulment of that judgment and, second, damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr František Doktor and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs incurred in connection with the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in Case C-28/94 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1990 financial year - Butter)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/3
Point 4(a) of Section J of Annex VI to Council Regulation (EEC)            1. Dismisses the application;
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
members of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
1983, as adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, to the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese         (1) OJ C 76 of 12.3.1994.
Republic and the Adjustments to the Treaties, must be interpreted as
not requiring the competent Netherlands institution, to which an
application for a pro rata invalidity benefit has been made by a
worker who has suffered an incapacity for work which arose in
another Member State, to treat the periods of insurance completed by
that worker in the Netherlands after 1 July 1967 under a special
scheme for civil servants as if they were periods of insurance
completed under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering of
18 February 1966.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                                                                           in Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Irland (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 80/778/EEC —
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   Water intended for human consumption — Rules designed
                                                                               to ensure implementation of water-quality standards)
                         of 22 April 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 204/05)
in Case C-28/94 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1990 financial year
                             — Butter)
                          (1999/C 204/04)                                  In Case C-340/96: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: Richard B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great
                                                                           Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: John E. Collins, assisted
                                                                           by Derek Wyatt and Mark Hoskins) — application for a
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          declaration that by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings,
                                                                           — to enforce compliance by water companies with the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July
                   in the European Court Reports)                               1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human
                                                                                consumption (OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11) and
In Case C-28/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: J.W. de
Zwaan and J.S van den Oosterkamp) v Commission of the                      — by failing thereby, to ensure that the quality of water
European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and M. van der                        supplied in several parts of the United Kingdom conforms
Woude) — application for partial annulment of Commission                        to the requirements of that Directive in that maximum
Decision 93/659/EC of 25 November 1993 on the clearance                         admissible concentrations for several parameters in the
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of                    Directive are exceeded, the United Kingdom has failed to
the expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural Guid-                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —
ance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ
1993 L 301, p. 13) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: P. Jann, President of
of P.J.G Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch,                     the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,                  J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl Principal                    D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22               General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
April 1999 in which it:                                                    a judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it:


title: Case C-344/05 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-157/04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/11

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-157/04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-344/05 P)
   (2005/C 281/21)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-157/04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Lidia Lozano Palacios and Hannes Kraemer, acting as Agents.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal

               —

               pass final judgment on the dispute, allowing the claims submitted by the defendant at first instance and, consequently, dismissing the application in Case T-157/04;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings, including its own costs in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Commission relies on a single plea against the judgment under appeal, alleging a breach of Community law in paragraphs 79 to 91 of that judgment. It submits that the Court of First Instance erred in holding, essentially, that the procedure resulting in the drawing up of a staff report containing unfavourable value judgments about the official being assessed is vitiated by a breach of this official's right to a fair hearing, where the assessors failed to record the factual basis of those value judgments, in the form of a written warning, in a ‘document’ within the meaning of the first and second paragraphs of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, and that there was also a failure to add such documents to the personal file of the official concerned within a reasonable time of the conduct alleged or, at the very least, to bring them to the official's knowledge.


title: Case C-684/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Johannes Demmer v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Single payment scheme — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Article 44(2) — Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 — Article 34(2)(a) — Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ — Areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways — Agricultural use — Lawfulness — Recovery of agricultural aid unduly allocated)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Johannes Demmer v Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter
   (Case C-684/13) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Common agricultural policy - Single payment scheme - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Article 44(2) - Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 - Article 34(2)(a) - Concept of ‘eligible hectare’ - Areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways - Agricultural use - Lawfulness - Recovery of agricultural aid unduly allocated))
   (2015/C 294/06)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Johannes Demmer

      Defendant: Fødevareministeriets Klagecenter

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 44(2) of Council Regulation No 1782/2003 (EC) of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, Articles 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation No 1782/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that an agricultural area made up of airfield safety areas surrounding runways, taxiways and stopways which are subject to specific rules and restrictions is an area eligible for the aid concerned, provided that: (i) the farmer using that area enjoys a sufficient degree of autonomy with regard to its use for the purposes of his or her agricultural activity; and (ii) the farmer is able to carry out the agricultural activity on that area despite restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas.

               2.

               Article 137 of Regulation No 73/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer who was informed prior to 1 January 2010 that payment entitlements were allocated to him or her unduly may not rely on that article for the purpose of having those entitlements regularised.
               Article 73(4) of Commission Regulation No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2184/2005 of 23 December 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that a farmer ought reasonably to have detected as ineligible for aid areas in respect of whose use he or she has no discretion for the purpose of carrying out his or her agricultural activity and/or on which he or she is unable to carry out agricultural activity due to restrictions arising from the pursuance of a non-agricultural activity on those same areas. The relevant moment for assessing whether the error committed could reasonably be detected by that farmer is the time of the payment. The assessment under Article 73(4) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned.
               Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004, as amended by Regulation No 2184/2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, a farmer must be regarded as having been in good faith if he or she sincerely believed that the areas concerned were eligible for aid. The assessment of that farmer’s good faith for the purposes of Article 73(5) of Regulation No 796/2004 must be conducted separately in respect of each of the years concerned and that good faith must continue until the end of the fourth year following the date of the payment of the aid.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-367/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark MOL Blue Card — Earlier Community word marks BLUE, BLUE BBVA and TARJETA BLUE BBVA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/77

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2013 — MOL v OHIM — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (MOL Blue Card)
   (Case T-367/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark MOL Blue Card - Earlier Community word marks BLUE, BLUE BBVA and TARJETA BLUE BBVA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/172
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: K. Szamosi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. de Oliveira Vaz Miranda Sousa and N. González-Alberto Rodríguez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2012 (Case R 2532/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA and MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MOL Magyar Olaj- és Gázipari Nyrt. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Case C-64/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements for excise duty — Directive 2008/118/EC — Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods — Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement — Goods missing on delivery — Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-64/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements for excise duty - Directive 2008/118/EC - Occurrence of an irregularity during a movement of excise goods - Movement of goods under a duty suspension arrangement - Goods missing on delivery - Levying of excise duty in the absence of proof of destruction or loss of the goods))
   (2016/C 106/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BP Europa SE

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ends, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods has found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there were shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him.

               2.

               The combined provisions of Articles 7(2)(a) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the situations which they govern are outside that referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive and

                           —

                           the fact that a provision of national law transposing Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not expressly state that the irregularity governed by that provision of the directive must have given rise to the release for consumption of the goods concerned, such an omission cannot prevent the application of that national provision to the discovery of shortages, which of necessity entail such a release for consumption.

               3.

               Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only where the total amount of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement failed to arrive at its destination, but also where only a part of those goods failed to arrive at its destination.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-356/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/24

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission
   (Case T-356/06)
   (2007/C 20/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV (represented by: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it is addressed to Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin;

               —

               order the Commission to pay its own costs and also those of Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), which imposed a fine on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the claimant invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the claimant, the Commission applied an incorrect standard for the purpose of determining the liability of a parent company and in so doing wrongly concluded that the claimant was principally liable for the alleged conduct of Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin B.V.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum, Germany in Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte v Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG (Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Purchase of immovable property — Investment financed by a secured loan — Right of cancellation — Effects of cancellation)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 25 October 2005
   in Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum, Germany in Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte v Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG (1)

   (Consumer protection - Doorstep selling - Purchase of immovable property - Investment financed by a secured loan - Right of cancellation - Effects of cancellation)
   (2006/C 86/04)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-350/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Bochum, (Germany), made by decision of 29 July 2003, received at the Court on 8 August 2003, in the proceedings between Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as excluding from the scope of the Directive contracts for the sale of immovable property even where they are merely a component of an investment scheme financed by a loan for which the negotiations prior to the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-selling situation, both as regards the contract for the purchase of the immovable property and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that purchase.

               2.

               Directive 85/577 does not preclude national rules which limit the effect of cancellation of the loan agreement to the avoidance of that agreement, even in the case of investment schemes in which the loan would not have been granted at all without the acquisition of the immovable property.

               3.

               Directive 85/577 does not preclude:

                           —

                           a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor thereof;

                           —

                           a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back immediately;

                           —

                           national legislation which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the agreement but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate.
                           However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with it obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 4 of Directive 85/577 requires Member States to ensure that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisation of those risks.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.


title: Case T-515/09 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 7 October 2009 in Case F-3/08, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/39

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 7 October 2009 in Case F-3/08, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-515/09 P)
   2010/C 51/74
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal,

               —

               declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever,

               —

               allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 7 October 2009 in Case F-3/08. That order dismissed as manifestly unfounded an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to send to the appellant a translation in Italian of a previous decision and an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage resulting from that refusal. The order under appeal also ordered the appellant, pursuant to Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST, to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000.
   In support of his claims, the appellant relies on the following pleas:

               —

               a total failure to state reasons and distortion and misrepresentation of the facts insofar as concerns the assertions made by the CST concerning whether it was possible for the appellant to understand the content of the letter in question in the language version in which it was notified to him.

               —

               Failure to have regard to the rules of law relating to the right of any individual to apply to a Community institution using any of the official languages of the Union and to receive a reply in the same language.

               —

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2000 in Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Joint sickness insurance scheme — Cover for spouses)

text:
C 102/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 February 2000
                      of 16 December 1999
                                                                          in Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-198/98: Micro Leader Business v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Joint sickness insurance scheme — Cover for
                                                                                spouses)
(Competition — Complaint — Rejection — Articles 85 and
86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) —                                                 (2000/C 102/48)
Prohibition on importing software marketed in a third
country — Exhaustion of copyright — Directive
                           91/250/EEC)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend, an official of the
                         (2000/C 102/47)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at Sterre-
                                                                          beek (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Greta-Fran-
                                                                          çoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                    (Language of the case: French)                        SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                          Clotuche) — application for annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Brussels Settlements Office of 12 March 1998 refusing to
In Case T-198/98, Micro Leader Business, a company incorpor-              reimburse to the applicant certain medical expenses incurred
ated under French law, established in Aulnay-sous-Bois, France,           by his wife — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge),
represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar,             composed of: V. Tiili, sitting as a single judge; J. Palacio
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Brucher and Seimetz, 10 Rue de Vianden, against Commission                ment on 3 February 2000, in which it:
of the European Communities, (Agents: initially José Crespo
Carrillo, and Loïc Guérin and, subsequently, Giuliano Marenco,            1. Dismisses the application;
and Loïc Guérin) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s decision of 15 October 1998 (Case IV/36.219                     2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the applicant’s
complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and Microsoft
Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language editions of             (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada from being
imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the
EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) — the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber),
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 15 October 1998 (Case                                    of 7 February 2000
     IV/36.219 Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the
     applicant’s complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and
     Microsoft Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language          in Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v
     editions of Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada                        Council of the European Union (1)
     from being imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and
     86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC and 82 EC).                                          (Taxation of costs)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/49)
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                          In Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd, having its registered
                                                                          office in Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom), Steven Kellar,
                                                                          J.M.A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen, residing in Manchester
                                                                          (United Kingdom), represented by K.P.E. Lasok, Barrister,
                                                                          instructed by C. Khan, Solicitor, with an address for service in


title: Case T-76/16: Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/40

         Action brought on 17 February 2016 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)
   (Case T-76/16)
   (2016/C 118/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AEGYPTISCHE ERDE’ — Application for registration No 14 027 239

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 in Case R 1257/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and register the mark applied for;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-767/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/28

         Action brought on 28 December 2015 — Labeyrie v OHIM — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background)
   (Case T-767/15)
   (2016/C 078/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delpeyrat (Saint Pierre du Mont, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark without any representation of colours (Representation of a sowing of light coloured fish on a dark background) — Community trade mark No 3 916 533

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2015 in Case R 2694/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in that it confirmed the decision of the Invalidity Division of OHIM revoking the rights of the company LABEYRIE over its Community mark No 3 916 533 to designate fish;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Article 1(1)(a) of that regulation, and of Rule 22 and Rule 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case C-579/14 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2014 by Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-297/13: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/13

         Appeal brought on 12 December 2014 by Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-297/13: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-579/14 P)
   (2015/C 311/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: C. Weil, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 4 June 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Junited Autoglas Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.


title: Case T-148/99: Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España S.A (DEMESA) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.10.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/25
Nutrition Animale (Fefana), established in Brussels, represented         Article 185 of the EC Treaty (now Article 242 EC) of enforce-
by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk Brinckman, of the Brussels Bar,             ment of Article 2(a) of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             18 November 1998 concerning emergency measures made
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and Hedwig Kerckhove              necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encepha-
and Paul Lambert, residing in Wingene (Belgium), represented             lopathy (BSE) in Portugal (OJ 1998 L 311, p. 23) inasmuch as
by Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, and Nina Köhncke,             it prohibits the despatch from Portugal to Spain and France of
Rechtsanwältin, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in               fighting bulls intended for cultural and sporting events held in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue,                  those Member States, and, second, for the grant of authoris-
v Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery and                ation pursuant to Article 186 of the EC Treaty (now
Moyra Sims), supported by Commission of the European                     Article 243 EC), subject to certain conditions, for the despatch
Communities (Agents: Peter Oliver, Theofanis Christoforou                of those animals from Portugal to Spain and France — the
and Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi), Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:              President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
Jørgen Molde), Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Anders Kruse) and               9 August 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
Republic of Finland (Agents: Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä)
— application for suspension of the operation of Council                 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of 17 December 1998 amending,
as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of certain anti-              2. The costs are reserved.
biotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
stuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4) or for other interim measures —
the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
30 June 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    Action brought on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Electronics
                                                                         Manufacturing España S.A (DEMESA) against the Com-
2. The costs are reserved.                                                           mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-148/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                           INSTANCE                                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 June 1999 by Daewoo Elec-
                        of 9 August 1999                                 tronics Manufacturing España S.A. (DEMESA), established in
                                                                         Alava (Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                         Begoña Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service
in Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R,              c/o Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels.
T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrı́cola
dos Arinhos Lda and Others v Commission of the                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    European Communities
                                                                         — annul the Commission’s decision of 24 February 1999
    (Procedure for interim measures — Urgency — None)                         concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Elec-
                                                                              tronics Manufacturing España S.A. (DEMESA);
                         (1999/C 299/35)                                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
In Joined Cases T-38/99 R, T-39/99 R, T-40/99 R, T-41/99 R,              advanced in Case T-127/99 Territorio Histórico de Alava,
T-42/99 R, T-45/99 R and T-49/99 R: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos              Arabako Foru Aldundia - Diputación Foral de Alava v Com-
Arinhos Lda, established in Lisbon, Sociedade Agrı́cola do               mission of the European Communities and in Case T-129/99
Monte da Aldeia Lda, established in Lisbon, António José da             Comunidad Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco and Gasteizco Industria
Veiga Teixeira, residing at Coruche (Portugal), Sociedade                Lurra v Commission.
Agrı́cola Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA established at
Almeirim (Portugal), Sociedade Agrı́cola de Perescuma SA,                The applicant pleads, in particular:
established al Almeirim, José de Barahona Núncio, residing at
Evora (Portugal), and Francisco Luı́s Pinheiro Caldeira, residing        — infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant
at Campo Maior (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho                      undertaking as the recipient of the alleged State aid in
Moniz and Júlia Rôla Roque, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address               issue, on account of the defendant’s failure to notify the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                   applicant of any of the steps taken in the administrative
Grand-Rue, v Commission of the European Communities                           procedure or to seek the applicant’s views concerning
(Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira, Gérard Berscheid and Vasco                   matters of great importance, whereas the contested
Airão) — application, first, for suspension pursuant to                      decision was indeed notified to it; and
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.10.1999
— failure to comply with the obligation to provide a state-             C. Further in the alternative
    ment of reasons.
                                                                             Annul the Commission’s letter of 29 April 1999, B/51839,
                                                                             DG IV-H-3/Kso D (99), refusing the applicants access to
                                                                             the files.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 5 July 1999 by Thermenhotel Stoiser                   The applicants are hotel undertakings in the spa town of
GmbH & Co. KG, Vier-Jahreszeiten Hotel-Betriebs-                        Loipersdorf (Steiermark).
gesmbH & Co. KG, Franz Kowald and Thermalhotel
Leitner GmbH against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                    In the contested decision, an aid of EUR 1 703 873 by the
                                                                        Land Steiermark was declared compatible with the EC Treaty
                        (Case T-158/99)                                 on regional development grounds. The aid consists of a costs
                                                                        subsidy for a hotel construction project in Loipersdorf by a
                                                                        subsidiary of Siemens AG Österreich, and the equivalent of a
                        (1999/C 299/37)                                 subsidy in the form of a property transaction (a site for the
                                                                        hotel project is being acquired at a favourable price from the
                                                                        state-owned Thermalquelle Loipersdorf GmbH & Co. KG and
                                                                        the Land Steiermark). The hotel is to be of international 5-star
                  (Language of the case: German)                        level with over 300 rooms (600 beds). A contract has also
                                                                        been concluded between the hotel company and Thermalquelle
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Loipersdorf, in which the latter undertakes, inter alia, to book
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              50 rooms daily for a period of three years, to extend the rest
European Communities on 5 July 1999 by Thermenhotel                     room in a particular section to 200 lying places for the use of
Stoiser GmbH & Co. KG and others, Loipersdorf (Austria),                hotel guests only, and not to allow any other hotel to construct
represented by Georg Eisenberger, Rechtsanwalt, Graz, with              a direct link to the spa until 1 January 2003. In return, the
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Gerry            hotel undertakes to book at least the 200 lying places daily.
Osch, 49 Boulevard Royal.
                                                                        The applicants consider that the contested decision should be
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             set aside as void because:
A. Main plea                                                            — in the main investigation proceedings pursuant to
                                                                             Article 88(2) EC [ex Article 93(2)], they were not given
                                                                             any opportunity to express an opinion;
    1. Declare the action admissible and well founded;
    2. Consequently:                                                    — the Commission is in breach of its duty to state reasons;
                                                                             and
        (a) Annul Commission Decision SG(99) D/1523 of
            2 March 1999, declaring state aids to Siemens AG            — the applicants’ right to be informed and to inspect the files
            Österreich in connection with the hotel project in              has been disregarded.
            Loipersdorf, Austria, compatible with the common
            market pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) [now Article
            87(3)(c)] of the EC Treaty;                                 They submit that there has been a breach of primary Com-
                                                                        munity law because the Commission classified only the project
                                                                        costs subsidy and the property transaction which took place
        (b) Order the Commission to pay the costs;                      as state aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC (ex Article 92),
                                                                        but did not so classify the granting of the occupancy guarantee,
B. In the alternative                                                   the provision without charge of 200 lying places in the spa,
                                                                        and the exclusive direct link to the spa for a period of
                                                                        five years until 1 January 2003 inclusive. The Commission
    1. Declare the action admissible;                                   therefore wrongly took the gross subsidy equivalent to be
                                                                        merely 4.5 %, whereas, applying the ‘market investor rule’, it
    2. Before deciding whether the action is well founded,              actually amounted to 25.4 %. In its incorrect legal assessment
        require the Commission to produce the studies of HVS            of these hidden subsidies, the Commission also committed a
        International, Pannell Kerr Forster Associates and the          misuse of powers.
        Institut für Technologie- und Regionalpolitik, referred
        to in its decision, and allow the applicants a period
        within which to state their position in writing and
        present a counter-report on the same factual level;


title: Case C-41/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-41/06) (1)

   (2006/C 249/22)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.03.2006.


title: Case T-413/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Socitrel v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/34

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — Socitrel v Commission
   (Case T-413/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/62
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Sociedade Industrial de Trefilaria, SA (São Romão de Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: F. Proença de Carvalho and T. de Faria, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission.

      Form of order sought

               —

               partially annul Article 1 and Article 2 of the Commission decision of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under the terms of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Pre-stressing Steel) with regard to the Applicant;

               —

               reduce the fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested by the applicant is the same decision contested in Case T-385/10 ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission.
   The applicant submits to the Court:

               (i)

               Serious failure to state reasons in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 of the TFEU, and breach of the principle of legitimate expectation in the application of the fine, infringing the rights of defence of the applicant when calculating the fine imposed on it.

               (ii)

               Breach of the rights of defence of SOCITREL by virtue of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure of the European Commission, undermining the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, pursuant to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

         Alternatively,

               (iii)

               Breach of Article 101 of the TFEU and manifest error of assessment in finding that SOCITREL was not operating autonomously in the market.

               (iv)

               The applicant also submits that the European Commission committed a manifest error by considering in the turnover, for the purposes of determining the 10 % limit of turnover applied to the calculation of fines, the combined turnover of the companies Emesa, Galycas and ITC, which did not form part of the PREVIDENTE Group at the time when the infringement was committed.

               (v)

               Breach of the principle of proportionality, non-discrimination and legitimate expectation when fixing the fine.


               1.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/38

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur by decision of that court of 4 May 2005 in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the Icelandic State and the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland

   (Case E-4/05)
   (2005/C 304/16)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 4 May 2005 of Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2005, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the Icelandic State and the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland, on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 11 and 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area prevent a state enterprise, which holds exclusive right to the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, from demanding that its suppliers deliver to the enterprise alcoholic beverages for retail sale on a specific type of pallet (EUR pallet), and furthermore that that the price of the pallet be included in the product price?

               2.

               Does Article 59 of the Agreement prevent requirements of this sort?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-472/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Clean Car Autoservice GmbH v Stadt Wien, Republik Österreich (Article 234 EC — Costs of the parties to the main proceedings — Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/15
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ                  (Regional Civil Court, Vienna) (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive                        in the proceedings pending before that court between Clean
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), Article 6               Car Autoservice GmbH and Stadt Wien, Republik Österreich
of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on                     — on the interpretation of the first subparagraph of
hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and Article 14 of                  Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of                      in codified version 1999/C 65/01 of 6 March 1999 (OJ 1999
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ                      C 65, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
1994 L 365, p. 10), the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber, acting as
of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                  hoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                        for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 December 2001,
                                                                           in which it has ruled:
1.    Declares that, by not forwarding to the Commission information
      concerning plans for the management and disposal of waste
                                                                           Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, in
      and hazardous waste in respect of the regions of Sicily and
                                                                           codified version 1999/C 65/01 of 6 March 1999, is to be
      Basilicata, or information concerning plans for the management
                                                                           interpreted as meaning that payment of the costs incurred by the
      of packaging and packaging waste in respect of all the Italian
                                                                           parties to the main proceedings for the purposes of the procedure
      regions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under Article 234 EC for obtaining a preliminary ruling is governed
      under Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                           by the domestic law rules applicable to the proceedings before the
      1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
                                                                           national court, provided that those rules are not less favourable than
      of 18 March 1991, Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC
                                                                           those applicable to similar procedural steps which may be taken in
      of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and Article 14 of
                                                                           such proceedings in accordance with national law.
      European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
      20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                10 January 2002
                        of 6 December 2001
in Case C-472/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  In Case C-480/99 P: Gerry Plant and Others v Commission
the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Clean Car                                  of the European Communities (1)
Autoservice GmbH v Stadt Wien, Republik Österreich (1)
                                                                           (Appeal — Action for annulment under Article 33 of the
(Article 234 EC — Costs of the parties to the main                         ECSC Treaty — Admissibility — Audi alteram partem rule
proceedings — Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedure of                                        in judicial proceedings)
                              the Court)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/24)
                           (2002/C 84/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                            in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-472/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                 In Case C-480/99 P, Gerry Plant and Others (agents: B. Hewson,
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien                       barrister, instructed by T. Graham, solicitor): Appeal against


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case C-428/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Frontex International’ ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — ‘Frontex International’ ЕАD v Emil Yanakiev
   (Case C-428/16)
   (2016/C 371/08)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Sofiyski rayonen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Frontex International’ ЕАD

      Defendant: Emil Yanakiev

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 101(1) TFEU (prohibition of the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession under which an association of undertakings which practise liberal professions (the Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) has discretion, by virtue of a power conferred on it by the State, to lay down in advance the minimum level of the prices for the services supplied by those undertakings (legal fees)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the last part of Paragraph 78(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in which that provision does not allow a reduction of the lawyer’s fee to below a fixed minimum amount) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Paragraph 132(5) of the Law on the Legal Profession (with regard to the application of Paragraph 136(1) of that law) conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               4.

               Does the first paragraph of Article 56 TFEU (prohibition of restrictions on freedom to provide services) preclude Paragraph 36(2) of the Law on the Legal Profession?

               5.

               Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Article 101(1) TFEU?

               6.

               Does Paragraph 78(8) of the Code of Civil Procedure conflict with Directive 77/249/EEC (1) (as regards the right of persons represented by in-house legal advisers to claim legal fees)?

               7.

               Does Paragraph 2a of the Supplementary Provisions to Order No 1 conflict with Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) which allows value added tax to be regarded as a component part of the price of the service supplied in the exercise of a profession (in relation to the inclusion of value added tax as part of the lawyer’s fee payable)?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-252/15 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Naazneen Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13: Naazneen Investments Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/19

         Appeal brought on 28 May 2015 by Naazneen Investments Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13: Naazneen Investments Limited v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   (Case C-252/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin, I. Rohr, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Energy Brands, Inc.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 in Case T-250/13,

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in Case R-1101/2011-2, alternatively, remit the case back to the Court, if necessary and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the appellant before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Board of Appeal and,

               —

               Should Energy Brands, Inc. intervene in the proceedings, order Energy Brands, Inc. to pay its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the General Court misinterpreted the scope of Article 75 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No. 207/2009 (1), did not carry out a correct and complete overall assessment of all evidence provided and all relevant circumstances of the case — or wrongly denied the failure of the Board of Appeal to do so — and did not sufficiently take into account, or misapplied, the principles of the case-law. Also, there is a distortion of facts with respect to several of its findings.
   I.   Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009
   The General Court erred in law with its finding that the Board of Appeal had given adequate reasons for its decision. In particular, it did not consider that the Board of Appeal had completely ignored pages 6-22 of the Grounds of Appeal and that it had failed to take into consideration all evidence provided and to provide any own arguments for its finding. In the context of proper reasons for non-use, the General Court erred in procedure, because it based its finding on the new aspect of the applicant’s licensee’s alleged obligations to control and supervise the manufacture of the products.
   II.   Infringement of Article 51 paragraph 1a of Regulation No. 207/2009
   1.   Genuine use
   The General Court

               —

               Wrongly found that the Board of Appeal had taken into account the affidavits provided, although it had not dealt with the probative value of these affidavits at all,

               —

               Based its finding on wrong facts when it confirmed a very limited economic significance of an order of 12 pallets of bottles in order to carry out ‘test sales’,

               —

               Wrongly established and applied a rule that a market of significant size — such as that for beverages as products for mass consumption — automatically resulted in higher requirements for extent of use,

               —

               Did not observe the principle that there is no continuous use requirement,

               —

               Erred in law when it found that the reasons why the mark had not been used more extensively and throughout the relevant period only had to be examined in the assessment of the reasons for non-use of that mark,

               —

               Did not take into account the difference between ‘non-use’ cases and ‘limited extent of use cases’,

               —

               Wrongly established a principle that when the Board of Appeal assesses the genuine use of a trademark, it only had to take into account the evidence of the existence of such use and not evidence explaining non-use of that mark,

               —

               Wrongly established a rule that in the context of advertising and other promotional activities, only big campaigns could be relevant,

               —

               Wrongly denied the relevance of printouts from the proprietor’s website and failed to take into account the appellant’s explanations and evidence provided in that regards,

               —

               Showed a wrong understanding of the term ‘token’.

         In the context of examining the relevance of a modest commercial volume in (re-)launch phases, the General Court

               —

               Made a calculation error,

               —

               Failed to take into account the defectiveness of the products and the revocation proceedings initiated by a third party as a plausible reason and

               —

               Erred in law with respect to the required quality of reasons for limited extent of use. In the context of genuine use, the reasons for not using the mark to a larger extent do not have to fulfil the requirement of justified reasons for non-use, but it must be sufficient that they make it plausible why the extent has not been larger.

         2.   Justifiable reasons for non-use
   2.1   Problems concerning the manufacturing of ‘SMART WATER’ beverages
   The General Court

               —

               Based its finding on a distortion of facts, because there actually had not been any neglect of obligations to control and supervise the manufacture of the products,

               —

               Showed a wrong understanding to the criteria ‘independently of the will of the trademark proprietor’ and ‘obstacle’ according to Article 19 (1) of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular by not asking whether it would have been unreasonable to produce and market new products but whether it had been impossible,

               —

               Failed to see that the appellant had provided detailed explanations as to why it had not been possible to easily and quickly continue with the producing and delivering, which neither the Board of appeal nor the General Court itself have taken into consideration.

         2.2   Revocation proceedings brought by a third party
   The General Court

               —

               Failed to see that revocation proceedings are clearly independent of the will of a trademark proprietor,

               —

               Applied an incorrect standard when it based its finding on the statement that the revocation proceedings did not prevent the proprietor from using the mark,

               —

               Established a wrong criterion of ‘direct consequences’: The General Court conceded that, if such revocation proceedings led to the revocation of the mark, an action for damages might be instituted. However, it denied a proper reason for non-use because this was not a ‘direct consequence’ of the revocation proceedings: The findings of the General Court in that regard are contrary to the ratio legis of the requirement of genuine use. The succinct statement that it was up to the proprietor to assess and calculate the risks and either use the mark despite the uncertainty of becoming liable for damages or back down and abstain from using the mark would clearly discriminate small and medium-sized enterprises. This would also open up for an easy possibility of abuse the tool of revocation proceedings by third parties interested in a registered mark.

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