title: Case C-629/13: Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach — Poland) — proceedings brought by: Adarco Invest sp. z o.o. w Petrosani w Rumunii Oddział w Polsce w Tarnowskich Górach

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach — Poland) — proceedings brought by: Adarco Invest sp. z o.o. w Petrosani w Rumunii Oddział w Polsce w Tarnowskich Górach
   (Case C-629/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/38
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-601/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission (Actions for annulment — State aid — Online gaming — Introduction in Denmark of lower taxes for online gaming than for casinos and amusement arcades — Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market — Aid to facilitate the development of certain activities — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/32

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission
      (Case T-601/11) (1)

      ((Actions for annulment - State aid - Online gaming - Introduction in Denmark of lower taxes for online gaming than for casinos and amusement arcades - Decision declaring aid compatible with the internal market - Aid to facilitate the development of certain activities - Lack of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility))
      (2014/C 395/37)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Parties

         Applicant: Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Fredericia, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær, T. Høg and J. Flodgaard, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and C. Barslev, and subsequently by M. Afonso and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented initially by C. Vang, and subsequently by M. Wolff and C. Thorning, acting as Agents, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen, lawyer); Republic of Malta (represented by: P. Grech and A. Buhagiar, acting as Agents); Betfair Group plc (London, United Kingdom) and Betfair International Ltd (Santa Venera, Malta) (represented by: O. Brouwer and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers); European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C.-D. Ehlermann, J.C. Heithecker and J. Ylinen, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/140/EU of 20 September 2011 in Case No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) on measures which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish [Law on gaming duties] (OJ 2012, L 68, p. 3).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Dansk Automat Brancheforening to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred in the main proceedings by the European Commission, Betfair Group plc, Betfair International Ltd and the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA);

                  3.

                  Orders Dansk Automat Brancheforening to pay its own costs in connection with the interim proceedings and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Malta to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 August 2003 in Case T-378/02 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional suspension)

text:
C 289/24                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          29.11.2003
3.    Reserves the costs, including those incurred by the intervener.        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 1 August 2003
                                                                             in Case T-378/02 R Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Proceedings for interim measures — State aid — Obligation
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   to recover aid — Prima facie case — Urgency — Weighing
                                                                             up of interests — Exceptional circumstances — Provisional
                                                                                suspension)
                       of 9 September 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 289/52)
in Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx v Commission of the                                               (Language of the case: German)
                   European Communities (1)
(Open competition — Failure to award the minimum number                      In Case T-378/02 R: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH,
of points required for the oral test — Omission from the                     established at Ilmenau, (Germany), represented by G. Schohe
reserve list — Reasons — Consistency between the complaint                   and C. Arhold, lawyers, with an address for service in
and the application — Application unfounded in part and
                                                                             Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                        inadmissible in part)                                ties (Agents: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz), supported by
                                                                             Schott Glas, established at Mainz (Germany), represented by
                                                                             U. Soltész, lawyer — application for suspension of the
                           (2003/C 289/51)                                   operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C (2002) 2147
                                                                             final on State aid by Germany in favour of Technische
                                                                             Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, the President of the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: French)                           Instance has made an order on 1 August 2003 in which he:
                                                                             1.    Suspends the operation, until 31 October 2003, of Article 2
                                                                                of Commission Decision C (2002) 2147 final on State aid
                                                                                C 44/2001 granted by Germany in favour of Technische
In Case T-293/02: Éric Vranckx, a member of the temporary                          Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH;
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis,                  2.    Makes that suspension of operation subject to the following
É. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers, with an address for                             conditions: first, that before 30 September 2003 at the latest
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                          the applicant should repay to the Thüringer Aufbaubank the
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios) —                          sum of EUR ... and within a week of making that repayment
application for annulment of the decision of the selection                         and by 7 October 2003 at the latest should lodge at the
board in competition COM/B/1/00 awarding the applicant a                           Registry of the Court of First Instance and at the Commission
mark lower than the minimum required and not entering him                          written proof of that repayment; second, that the first-priority
on the reserve list — the Court of First Instance (Third                           mortgage security granted to the Thüringer Aufbaubank over
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and                         the land on which the fourth furnace stands should be released
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            and re-granted to the Bundesanstalt für Vereinigungsbedingte
9 September 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                       Sonderaufgaben by 10 October 2003 at the latest, in order to
                                                                                guarantee the latter’s right to repayment of the balance of the
                                                                                sale price under asset deal 1; third, that by 10 October 2003
1.    The application is dismissed;                                                at the latest Mr Geiß should lodge security, similar to the
                                                                                personal surety jointly and severally liable with the principal
                                                                                debtor lodged on 3 March 1998 by him in respect of the
2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs.                                   repayment of the loan made by the Thüringer Aufbaubank, in
                                                                                favour of the Bundesanstalt für Vereinigungsbedingte Son-
                                                                                deraufgaben in respect of the balance of the sale price under
                                                                                asset deal 1; fourth, that by 17 October 2003 at the latest
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.02.
                                                                                written proof of the novation of the securities, required in
                                                                                accordance with the second and third conditions set out above,
                                                                                should be lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance
                                                                                and at the Commission;
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/25
3.    Reserves the costs.                                                  Th. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer. The additional party before
                                                                           the Board of Appeal was Conceria Toska S.R.L., Milan (Italy).
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     defendant of 13 May 2003 (Case R 369/2002-2);
                             INSTANCE
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                      of 16 September 2003
in Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez v
        Commission of the European Communities                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(Interim measures — Application for suspension of oper-
                    ation — Urgency — None)                                Applicant for Com-            Conceria Toska S.R.L.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 289/53)
                                                                           Community trade mark          Word mark TOSKA for goods
                                                                           sought:                       in Class 18 (including bags) —
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                       application No 743427
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         Applicant
In Case T-272/03 R: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing                sign cited in the oppo-
in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Iturriagagoititia and             sition:
K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and                Mark or sign cited in         German word mark TOSCA for
H. Tserepa- Lacombe) — application for suspension of the                   opposition:                   perfumes (including ‘parfum’, ‘eau
operation of the Commission’s decision of 12 May 2003                                                    de toilette’, and ‘eau de parfum
rejecting the application to renew the applicant’s temporary                                             pour femmes’)
staff contract, the President made an order on 16 September
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                           Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                           sition Division:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 —    The opposition based on the
                                                                                mark with reputation is well
                                                                                founded       pursuant      to
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94 (1).
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co.                                                     —    There is a likelihood of con-
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                       fusion between the opposing
         Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                marks.
                           (Case T-263/03)                                                               —    There are certain similarities
                                                                                between the         opposing
                                                                                goods.
                          (2003/C 289/54)
                                                                                —    The earlier mark is a mark
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                             with reputation within the
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was                                             meaning of Article 8(5) of
                          submitted: German)                                                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 July 2003 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, represented by


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-232/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-327/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/52)                                                       (2001/C 118/55)
By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Court of              By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-232/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-327/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                             ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport
                                                                      SpA v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-243/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-362/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/56)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-243/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport           from the register of Case C-362/99: [reference for a preliminary
SpA v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.                 ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: SEIKO
                                                                      Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-284/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-250/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/57)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-284/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: New Yorker           from the register of Case C-250/00: Commission of the
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco.                              European Communities v Portugal.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case T-291/02: Action brought on 17 September 2002 by González y Díez S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/33
Action brought on 24 September 2002 by Associazione                       In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges, first, breach
Consorzi Tessili — ASCONTEX against Commission of                         of the duty to provide reasons. According to the applicant, the
                  the European Communities                                Commission never carried out the investigation required under
                                                                          Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1), which is
                                                                          applicable in the present case. Thus, the Commission did not
                          (Case T-290/02)                                 invite Italy to submit its comments despite the fact that
                                                                          financial assistance was granted with the support of the Italian
                                                                          Government. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the
                         (2002/C 289/61)                                  Commission failed to reply to its proposals to make changes
                                                                          to the project. The applicant further states that the Commission
                                                                          has not adopted a decision on the eligibility of the expenditure
                   (Language of the case: French)                         incurred by it in relation to the project. According to the
                                                                          applicant, the Commission was in full possession of all the
                                                                          information in that regard.
                                                                          The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of legitimate
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          expectations. According to the applicant, the Commission has
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 2002 by Associa-                     not challenged the eligibility of the expenditure incurred by
                                                                          the applicant.
zione Consorzi Tessili — ASCONTEX, whose registered office
is at Milan (Italy), represented by Patrick Mbaya and Laurent
Denis, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The last plea in law put forward by the applicant alleges breach
                                                                          of the principle of legal certainty. According to the applicant,
                                                                          the Commission has rejected the expenditure claimed by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               applicant for lack of certification whereas it had never made
                                                                          any such observation previously. Moreover, the applicant
                                                                          states that certification for expenditure must be submitted with
—     annul the decision of 12 July 2002 withdrawing financial            the final report for the project.
      assistance from the applicant for the ASCONTEX IBEX
      EURESPRIT project;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
—     declare that the advance of EUR 200 000 is not to be                     laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
      repaid;
                                                                               different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                               operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
—     annul in part, in the alternative, the decision of 12 July               existing financial instruments (JO L 374, p. 1).
      2002 withdrawing financial assistance from the applicant
      for the ASCONTEX IBEX EURESPRIT project;
—     declare that the advance of EUR 200 000 is to be repaid
      to the Commission only after the latter adopts a decision
      on the eligibility of the expenditure submitted and on the
      proportion of that not used by the applicant;
                                                                          Action brought on 17 September 2002 by González
                                                                          y Díez S.A. against the Commission of the European
—     order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.                                             Communities
                                                                                (Case T-291/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (2002/C 289/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant is a member of the Italian association of textile
manufacturers. It received from the Commission financial
assistance for an international salon exhibition in the textile
and clothing sector. The salon was to be held in Capri.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 17 September 2002 by the under-
In the contested decision, the Commission withdraws its                   taking González y Díez S.A., Villabona-Llanera (Asturias,
financial assistance and seeks repayment of the advance already           Spain), represented by J. Folguera Crespo, A. Martínez Sánchez
paid.                                                                     and J.C. Engra Moreno, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/34               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.11.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The applicant also alleges a breach of the requirement to state
                                                                       reasons.
—     annul Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the Commission Decision of
      2 July 2002 concerning aid granted by Spain to the               (1 ) OJ L 329 of 30.12.1993, p. 12.
      undertaking González y Díez SA for the years 1998,               (2 ) OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1.
      2000 and 2001; and
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 September 2002 by Eric Vranckx
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-293/02)
Pursuant to Article 1 of the contested Decision, the defendant                                  (2002/C 289/63)
institution found incompatible with the common market part
of the State aid granted to the applicant by the Spanish                                   (Language of the case: French)
authorities in 1998, 2000 and 2001, totalling EUR
5 113 254,96, to cover exceptional costs arising from modern-
isation, rationalisation and restructuring, in accordance with
Article 5 of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
industry ( 1).
                                                                       European Communities on 23 September 2002 by Eric
                                                                       Vranckx, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,
                                                                       Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg.
In support of the form of order sought, the applicant claims:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     fundamental procedural irregularities, contrary to Articles
      88 of the ESCS Treaty and 4(4) of Council Regulation             —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in Competition
      (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down                          COM/B/1/00 in so far as the oral test marks awarded to
      detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now 88)              the applicant are concerned;
      of the EC Treaty (2), by failing to publish in the Official
      Journal the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal
                                                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      investigation procedure;
—     numerous manifest errors of assessment, in that the
      Commission based the contested decision on facts which           Pleas in law and main arguments
      are not relevant to the case in question, such as the
      conditions on which the applicant was acquired by Mina
      la Camocha, and ordered the recovery of an amount                The applicant participated in Competition COM/B/1/00. He
      higher than that granted to the applicant. The Com-              contests the failure to include him on the reserve list for
      mission also made an error of fact in considering that the       assistants in the field of information technology and telecom-
      amount of the aid granted for exceptional costs arising          munications.
      from restructuring for the year 2001 was
      ESP 393 971,600, and in failing to take account of certain
      exceptional costs arising from restructuring under the aid       In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
      granted in 1998, 2000 and 2001;
                                                                       —     breach of the duty to provide reasons;
—     breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-       —     manifest error of assessment;
      tations, in that the Commission asked Spain to recover
      aid previously authorised under Decisions 98/637/ECSC
                                                                       —     failure to take account of the competition notice.
      of 3 June 1998 and 2001/162/ECSC of 13 December
      2000 concerning the granting of aid by Spain to the coal
      industry in the years 1998 and 2000, respectively.


title: Case T-407/10: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Structural funds — Financial assistance — Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line — VAT — Non-eligible expenditure)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-407/10) (1)

   (Structural funds - Financial assistance - Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line - VAT - Non-eligible expenditure)
   2012/C 343/24
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, D. Triantafyllou and V. Bottka, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment brought against the Commission Decision of 8 July 2010 relating to the major project for ‘Reconstruction of the Budapest-Kelenföld-Székesfehérvár-Boba railway line, section 1, phase 1’ forming part of the ‘Transport’ operational programme for structural support from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CCI 2008HU161PR015).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-367/08: Order of the President of the Court of 23 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-367/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/78)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case F-15/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2011 — Mariën v SEAE

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 September 2011 — Mariën v SEAE
   (Case F-15/11) (1)

   2012/C 138/102
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 30-31.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2004 in Case C-268/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Antwerp): Jean-Claude De Baeck v Belgische Staat (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Fiscal legislation — Taxation on income of natural persons — Assignment of a major holding in the capital of a resident company — Detailed rules governing charge to tax on resultant gain)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 8 June 2004
   in Case C-268/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Antwerp): Jean-Claude De Baeck v Belgische Staat (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Fiscal legislation - Taxation on income of natural persons - Assignment of a major holding in the capital of a resident company - Detailed rules governing charge to tax on resultant gain)
   (2004/C 228/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-268/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Antwerp (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Claude De Baeck and Belgische Staat — on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46 EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 CE — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 8 June 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude national legislation, such as Articles 67(8) and 67 ter of the Belgian income tax code, in the version in force at the material time for the purposes of the main proceedings, pursuant to which gains secured on the assignment for valuable consideration, otherwise than in the exercise of a business activity, of shares or stock in companies, associations, establishments or bodies, attract a charge to tax where the transfer is made to companies, associations, establishments or bodies established in another Member State, whereas, in the same circumstances, those gains are not chargeable to tax where that transfer is made to Belgian companies, associations, establishments or bodies, provided that the shareholding transferred gives its holder definite influence over the company's decisions and allows him to determine its activities.

               2.

               Article 56 EC precludes national legislation, such as that mentioned above, where the shareholding transferred does not give its holder definite influence over the company's decisions or allow him to determine its activities.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-256/09: Action brought on 2 July 2009 — AECOPS v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/33

         Action brought on 2 July 2009 — AECOPS v Commission
   (Case T-256/09)
   2009/C 220/71
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 21 June 2005 in respect of File 89 0771 P1, reducing the aid granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 to PTE 48 504 201 and requiring reimbursement of the amount of PTE 53 310 198;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Infringement of the right to a prior hearing: the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment before a definitive decision to reduce the financial assistance was adopted, which constitutes a breach of an essential procedural requirement the disregard of which renders such a decision void.
   Infringement of the principal of legal certainty through limitation and excessive delay in adopting a decision.
   Breach of the duty to state reasons: the contested decision fails to set out, even summarily, the reasons for reducing the assistance.


title: Case C-420/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Marken (Request for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Identification of goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought — Requirements of clarity and precision — Nice Classification — Retail trade — Bringing together of services)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany)) — Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent- und Marken
   (Case C-420/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Identification of goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought - Requirements of clarity and precision - Nice Classification - Retail trade - Bringing together of services))
   2014/C 315/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Netto Marken-Discount AG & Co. KG

      Defendant: Deutsches Patent- und Marken

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Services rendered by an economic operator which consist in bringing together services so that the consumer can conveniently compare and purchase them may come within the concept of ‘services’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.

               2.

               Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as imposing a requirement that an application for registration of a trade mark with respect to a service which consists in bringing together services must be formulated with sufficient clarity and precision so as to allow the competent authorities and other economic operators to know which services the applicant intends to bring together.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-256/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Niculae and Others v Romania and Others (Application for interim measures — Dismissal of the main action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Niculae and Others v Romania and Others
   (Case T-256/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Dismissal of the main action - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 410/30)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicants: Ioan Niculae (Bucharest, Romania) and the five other applicants, whose names are included in the Annex to the order (represented by: M. Vassii, lawyer)

      Defendants: Romania, European Commission, Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and Autoritatea naţională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE) (Romania).

      Re:

   Application for interim measures in the context of an action against Romania, the European Commission, the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) and the Autoritatea naţională de reglementare în domeniul energiei (ANRE) (Romania).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

               2.

               Ioan Niculae and the other applicants whose names are included in the Annex to the order shall bear their own costs.


C 55/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                       8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-97/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/58)                                                         (2003/C 55/61)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/02 (Reference for a preliminary         from the register of Case C-97/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite Franchi SpA v            ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Rezzola Scavi Srl v
Ministero delle Finanze.                                               Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-95/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-98/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/59)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/62)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                       By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-95/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       from the register of Case C-98/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Ugine Srl v Ministero delle
                                                                       ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Villa Gemma SpA v
Finanze.
                                                                       Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-96/02 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-106/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/60)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/63)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-96/02 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): TOMAR Srl v Ministero             from the register of Case C-106/02: Commission of the
delle Finanze.                                                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case C-495/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (Italy)) — Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin and Piero Constantini v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public procurement — National legislation — Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement — Right to an effective remedy — Dissuasive fees — Judicial review of administrative decisions — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/10

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento (Italy)) — Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin and Piero Constantini v Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

   (Case C-495/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - National legislation - Fees for access to administrative proceedings in the field of public procurement - Right to an effective remedy - Dissuasive fees - Judicial review of administrative decisions - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence))
   (2016/C 270/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale regionale di giustizia amministrativa di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antonio Tita, Alessandra Carlin, Piero Constantini

      Defendants: Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (TRGA)

      Operative part of the order

   Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring the payment of court fees, such as the standard fee at issue in the main proceedings, when proceedings are brought in the public procurement field before the administrative courts.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-396/03: Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Joseph Vanhellemont against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 47/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     so far as necessary, also annul the decisions against which
                                                                                the complaint was brought, namely:
The applicant, a former official of the Commission, worked
for several years in the Berlaymont building which was at the                   —     the decision of the Commission mpt to take any
time contaminated with asbestos. In 1996, the applicant                               steps to rectify any errors in counting committed
sought recognition of her illness as an occupational disease                          during the 2002 staff committee elections to elect
and, in 1998, she requested that a medical committee be                               the Brussels local staff committee;
consulted in accordance with Article 21 of the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities.                   —     the decision communicated on 10 January 2003 by
That medial committee initially adopted a majority opinion in                         the chairperson of the electoral bureau, following
2000 but, following a complaint from the applicant, the                               two requests submitted by the applicant, dated
defendant decided to refer the matter back to it. By letter of                        23 December 2002;
7 October 2003, the Commission informed the applicant that
the medical committee had lodged its opinion. By the same                 —     order the Commission to pay EUR 29 635 by way of
letter, the Commission informed the applicant that it con-                      damages;
firmed its decision not to recognise the applicant’s medical
complaint as being occupational in origin. By letters of 17 and           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
27 October 2003, the Commission charged to the applicant
part of the fees and expenses of the members of the medical
committee.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges irregularity of
the opinion of the medical committee and of the decisions and
acts relating thereto, breach of the duty to have regard for the          In support of his application, the applicant alleges manifest
welfare of officials as regards the decision concerning the fees          error of assessment, breach of the duty to have regard for the
and expenses, breach of the principle of sound administration,            welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration
misuse of powers and breach of legitimate expectations.                   and infringement of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Joseph Vanhel-
lemont against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2003 by the Fédération
                                                                          de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’) against the Commission
                         (Case T-396/03)                                                   of the European Communities
                          (2004/C 47/57)
                                                                                (Case T-397/03)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/58)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                     (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 December 2003 by Joseph
Vanhellemont, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas
Vogel, lawyer.                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               European Communities on 10 December 2003 by the Fédér-
                                                                          ation de l’Hospitalisation Privée (‘FHP’), established in Paris,
—     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority              represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, avocat.
      on 26 August 2003 and notified on 5 September 2003,
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 1 April
      2003 seeking the annulment of a decision of the chairper-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      son of the electoral bureau of 10 January 2003 who, after
      two requests of 23 December 2002, refused to recount                —     Declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
      the votes cast in the elections for the Brussels local staff              ties has failed to act with regard to the complaint filed
      committee, held between the 2 and 14 December 2002,                       under number A/40342-H3;


title: Case C-106/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza
   (Case C-106/13)
   2013/C 141/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale

      Defendants: Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza

      Question referred

   Does the national legislation of the Italian Republic — in particular, Article 33 of Law No 1150/42, which allows the municipalities to regulate the urban development of land and/or building works on that land within the boundaries of each municipality in accordance with the general principles laid down in that Law, in Article 1 of Law No 10/77 and in various laws adopted by the individual regions, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 6 June 2001‘consolidating the legislative and regulatory provisions on building’ and with lower-ranking local rules (general land use plans, implementing rules) and Article 46 of Presidential Decree No 380/2001, which renders sales transactions void in the event of alterations to immovable property being made without proper authorisation — constitute a disproportionate and unreasonable encroachment on the right to property, albeit regulated by law, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 [TEU] and Articles 17 and 52(3) of the [Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union]?


title: Case F-52/06: Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/34

         Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol
   (Case F-52/06)
   (2006/C 190/64)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Mike Pimlott (Porchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Europol's decision of 25 January 2006;

               —

               Order Europol to renew the applicant's contract for a period of four years, from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010;

               —

               Order Europol to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, after having been first engaged by Europol on 1 January 2000 for a period initially fixed at four years, was employed from 1 January 2002 in a different position within the same bureau, under a new contract, which was to end on 31 December 2005.
   In his action, the applicant challenges Europol's decision to renew that contract for two years only. He claims that, from the time he took up his new post under the new contract, Europol should have treated him not as a staff member to whom the authorities of his State of origin had granted unpaid special leave, but as a staff member who was no longer linked to those authorities. The distinction is relevant because, in the first case, the second indent of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, permitting renewal for a period of two years, is to be applied, while in the second case the third indent of that provision, permitting renewal for a period of four years, is to be applied.
   The applicant submits that in 2002 he severed all ties with his original employer in the United Kingdom and that he was persuaded that the latter would amend the staff roll as a result. Even were it to be established that, in fact, the United Kingdom authorities did not remove him from that roll, the applicant claims that he himself should not in any event have to bear the consequences of that negligence.


title: Case T-152/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PROTIACTIVE — Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Concept of a provision to the contrary — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIACTIVE)
   (Case T-152/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTIACTIVE - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
   2012/C 32/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: F. Baujoin, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2009 (Case R 1661/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


C 304/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             Assignment of Judges to Chambers                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (2003/C 304/37)
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
At its plenary meeting of 9 October 2003, the Court of First           in Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-
Instance decided to supplement as follows the decision on the          rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik
composition of the chambers taken at the plenary meeting of            Deutschland (ARD) v Commission of the European Com-
2 July 2003 (OJ 2003 C 184, p. 32):                                                               munities (1)
In accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the         (Competition — Concentrations — Admissibility — Pay-TV
Court of First Instance, for the period from 9 October 2003 to         and digital interactive television services markets — Serious
31 August 2004, Judge Dehousse is assigned to the First                doubts as to compatibility with the common market —
Chamber, Extended Composition, the Third Chamber and the               Commitments in the course of the first phase of examination
Third Chamber, Extended Composition.                                   — Time-limits — Modification of commitments — Insuf-
                                                                                ficiency of commitments)
                                                                                (2003/C 304/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance in deciding an application for
                       interim measures
                        (2003/C 304/38)                                In Case T-158/00 Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtli-
                                                                       chen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
                                                                       (ARD), established in Cologne (Germany), represented by
                                                                       P. Mailänder and A. Bartosch, lawyers, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the
At its plenary meeting of 9 October 2003, the Court of First           European Communities (Agent: P. Wiedner), supported by
Instance decided to supplement as follows the decision taken           KirchPayTV GmbH & Co. KGaA, established in Unterföring
at the plenary meeting of 2 July 2003 (OJ 2003 C 184, p. 33)           (Germany), represented by K. Metzlaff, lawyer, with an address
on the designation of the Judge replacing the President of the         for service in Luxembourg, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc
Court of First Instance in deciding an application for interim         (BSkyB), established in Isleworth (United Kingdom), represent-
measures:                                                              ed by S. Wisking and D. Livingston, solicitors, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg, application for annulment of
                                                                       Commission Decision SG (2000) D/102552 of 21 March
                                                                       2000 (Case COMP/JV.37), which declared the notified concen-
In accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of            tration by which BSkyB acquired joint control of KirchPayTV
the Court of First Instance, for the period from 9 October             to be compatible with the common market and with the
2003 to 31 August 2004, Judge Tiili is designated to replace           Agreement on the European Economic Area, pursuant to
the President of the Court of First Instance in deciding an            Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of
application for interim measures in the event that both the            21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between
President and Judge García-Valdecasas are absent or prevented          undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1), the Court of First Instance
from dealing with it.                                                  (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
                                                                       K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
                                                                       which it:


title: Case C-288/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Notion of same acts — Contraband cigarettes — Importation into several Contracting States — Prosecution in different Contracting States — Notion of enforcement of criminal penalties — Suspension of the execution of the sentence — Setting-off of brief periods of detention pending trial — European arrest warrant)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger
   (Case C-288/05) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - Ne bis in idem principle - Notion of ‘same acts’ - Contraband cigarettes - Importation into several Contracting States - Prosecution in different Contracting States - Notion of ‘enforcement’ of criminal penalties - Suspension of the execution of the sentence - Setting-off of brief periods of detention pending trial - European arrest warrant)
   (2007/C 235/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Party in the main proceedings
   Jürgen Kretzinger

      in the presence of: Hauptzollamt Augsburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem principle — Conditions governing the expiry of the right to bring criminal proceedings — Notion of ‘same acts’ — Transportation of contraband cigarettes across the territory of several Member States — Conviction, in two Member States, in respect of tax evasion and handling the profits of tax evasion, respectively — Notion of ‘enforcement’ — Stay in enforcement of the sentence — Inclusion of periods of detention on remand
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990, in Schengen, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected;

                           —

                           acts consisting in receiving contraband foreign tobacco in one Contracting State and of importing that tobacco into another Contracting State and being in possession of it there, characterised by the fact that the defendant, who was prosecuted in two Contracting States, had intended from the outset to transport the tobacco, after first taking possession of it, to a final destination, passing through several Contracting States in the process, constitute conduct which may be covered by the notion of ‘same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54. It is for the competent national courts to make the final assessment in that respect.

               2.

               For the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA, a penalty imposed by a court of a Contracting State ‘has been enforced’ or is ‘actually in the process of being enforced’ if the defendant has been given a suspended custodial sentence.

               3.

               For the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA, a penalty imposed by a court of a Contracting State is not to be regarded as ‘having been enforced’ or ‘actually in the process of being enforced’ where the defendant was for a short time taken into police custody and/or held on remand pending trial and that detention would count towards any subsequent enforcement of the custodial sentence under the law of the State in which judgment was given.

               4.

               The fact that a Member State in which a person has been sentenced by a final and binding judgment under its national law may issue a European arrest warrant for the arrest of that person in order to enforce the sentence under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States cannot affect the interpretation of the notion of ‘enforcement’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case T-304/11: Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Alumina v Council

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/29

         Action brought on 16 June 2011 — Alumina v Council
   (Case T-304/11)
   2011/C 226/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alumina d.o.o (Zvornik, Bosnia and Herzegovina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and B. Servais, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the anti-dumping duty imposed on the applicant by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   First, the applicant considers that the anti-dumping duty fixed in the contested regulation is unlawful since the method used to calculate the constructed normal value is in breach of Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic regulation. In the construction of the normal value, the defendant has used a profit margin of 58,89 % calculated on the basis of the applicant’s non-representative domestic sales. Use of such a profit margin is incompatible with Article 2 of the basic regulation. The construction of the normal value is affected by a fundamental contradiction since the method used by the defendant to construct the normal value obtains the same result as if the normal value had been based on the prices of the non-representative domestic sales. Such a method is contrary to the settled practice of the Commission and the Council and to the case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice. Moreover, the chosen profit margin of 58,89 % is not ‘reasonable’. Lastly, the defendant is wrong to rely on case-law stemming from WTO rulings to apply a profit margin which is not ‘reasonable’ in the construction of the normal value applicable to the applicant’s exports.
   Secondly, the applicant also considers that the method used to calculate the constructed normal value is in breach of the provisions of Article 2(6) of the basic regulation in that the applicant’s domestic sales were not made in the ‘ordinary course of trade’ within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the basic regulation.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-85/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/17/EC — Reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-85/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/17/EC - Reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 19/13)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-85/04: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 February 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and P. Léouffre) against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann) – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 3.4.2004.


title: Case T-310/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/64

         Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-310/06)
   (2006/C 326/137)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Assignment of the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance pursuant to Articles 14(1) and 51(1) of its Rules of Procedure.

               —

               Annulment of the following provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 of 18 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality (1) of cereals (‘the Regulation’):

                           —

                           Article 1(1) insofar as it refers to maize;

                           —

                           Article 1(3), amending Article 9(b) of Regulation No 824/2000, insofar as it refers to maize;

                           —

                           the value relating to the specific weight required for maize appearing in line E of the table given in point 1 of the annex, and

                           —

                           Table III in point 2 of the annex insofar as it refers to maize.

               —

               An order that the Commission of the European Communities pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 1572/2006 and the annex thereto because it considers that they are unlawful.
   It relies on the following pleas in support of its application:

               —

               The Commission has breached the legitimate expectations of the producers by introducing during the financial year a requirement relating to the specific weight of maize, and the principles of legal certainty and proportionality by allowing an inordinately short preparatory period between the date of publication and the date of entry into force and by failing to take account of the need for gradual adjustment.

               —

               The Commission did not have the authority to lay down the requirement relating to the specific weight of maize.

               —

               In the event that it is considered that the Commission was empowered to lay down that requirement, the applicant submits that the defendant has exceeded its powers, given that it significantly altered the intervention regime for maize in practice under the pretext of amending the qualitative parameters for intervention.

               —

               Even if it is considered that the Commission was empowered to lay down the requirement relating to the specific weight of maize, that institution made a manifest error of assessment, in that, by establishing a criterion for the average quality of maize, it did not take account of the fact that the maize produced in the Community is used mainly for animal fodder.

               —

               The Commission has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 253 EC to state the reasons on which legal acts are based.

               —

               The Commission has infringed the internal rules of the Management Committee for Cereals in not respecting the time-limit laid down by those rules.

      (1)  OJ L 290, 20.10.2006, p. 29.


title: Case T-287/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — Swemac Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/38

         Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Swemac Innovation v EUIPO — Swemac Medical Appliances (SWEMAC)
   (Case T-287/17)
   (2017/C 213/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Swemac Innovation AB (Linköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Nygren, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swemac Medical Appliances AB (Linköping, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SWEMAC’ — EU trade mark No 6 326 177

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2017 in Case R 3000/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reinstate the EUTM number 006326177 to full validity, including goods and services in classes 10: ‘Surgical and medical apparatus and instruments’ and 42 ‘Research and development services relating to surgical and medical apparatus and instruments’;

               —

               order the other party to pay the costs of the Applicant before EUIPO and the Boards of Appeal, EUR 1 000; and

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the Applicant before the General Court.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-444/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Furukawa Electric v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/38

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Furukawa Electric v Commission
   (Case T-444/14)
   2014/C 303/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Furukawa Electric Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: C. Pouncey, A. Luke and L. Geary, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of Article 1(9)(a) of the decision to the extent that it states that an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement involving Furukawa occurred during the period 18 February 1999 and 30 September 2001. In the alternative, order the annulment of Article 1(9)(a) of the decision to the extent that it finds that any infringement involving Furukawa commenced on 18 February 1999 and/or that Furukawa’s direct involvement in any infringement continued after 11 June 2001;

               —

               order the annulment of Article 2(n) of the decision and/or order a substantial reduction of the fine;

               —

               if the Court should give judgment in an action brought by VISCAS Corporation reducing the fine imposed in Article 2(p) of the decision for infringements by VISCAS Corporation for which Furukawa is jointly and severally liable, declare that Furukawa is entitled to an equivalent reduction in the amount of the fine for which it is jointly and severally liable; and

               —

               order that the Commission pay the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 — Power Cables.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and/or Regulation No 1/2003 (1) by mischaracterising the conduct that occurred during the period 18 February 1999 to 30 September 2001. The applicant submits that:

                           —

                           the Commission failed to establish the existence of an infringement involving the applicant in the terms described in the contested decision during this period; and

                           —

                           in the alternative, the Commission failed to establish that an infringement involving the applicant commenced on 18 February 1999.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission failed to discharge its burden of proof in asserting that the applicant continued its participation in any infringement after 11 June 2001 or that it ‘continued’ its involvement via VISCAS Corporation after 30 September 2001.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the applicant’s level of involvement in the infringement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on the applicant in respect of the period prior to 1 October 2001 is time-barred.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission made errors in the calculation of the fine imposed on the applicant by:

                           —

                           using an inappropriate value of sales figure to calculate the fine imposed on the applicant;

                           —

                           miscalculating the multiplier for duration; and

                           —

                           failing to apply a mitigating circumstance to the applicant.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, asking the Court to extend to the applicant the benefit of any reduction in the fine which the Court may grant to VISCAS Corporation, in any application made by VISCAS Corporation for annulment or variation of the fine imposed on it in the contested decision.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the fine is, in all the circumstances, manifestly disproportionate, excessive and inappropriate and that the Court should therefore exercise its unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 to review the level of the fine and in doing so substantially reduce it.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-527/11: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/37

         Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)
   (Case T-527/11) (1)

   2013/C 108/88
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case C-7/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Beatriz Salvador García against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/26

         Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Beatriz Salvador García against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-7/06 P)
   (2006/C 60/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 January 2006 by Beatriz Salvador García, represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               (1)

               Declare this appeal admissible;

               (2)

               Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 and, if appropriate, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               (3)

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI of Community law in paragraphs 36 to 59 of the judgment under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-233/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Access Info Europe v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document concerning an ongoing legislative procedure — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Disclosure by a third party — Interest in bringing proceedings not lost — Identification of the Member State delegations which made proposals — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Access Info Europe v Council
   (Case T-233/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document concerning an ongoing legislative procedure - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - Period allowed for bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Disclosure by a third party - Interest in bringing proceedings not lost - Identification of the Member State delegations which made proposals - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)
   2011/C 139/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Access Info Europe (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, Agents) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by E. Jenkinson and S. Ossowski, Agents, and by L.J. Stratford, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Council of 26 February 2009 refusing in part to grant the applicant access to a note from the General Secretariat of the Council to the Working Party on Information (Document No 16338/08) concerning the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Council’s decision of 26 February 2009 refusing access to certain information, contained in a note of 26 November 2008, concerning a proposal for a regulation regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

               2.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Access Info Europe;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009


title: Case C-127/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-127/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 328/14
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou Apostolopoulu and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-567/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie v Woningstichting Sint Servatius (Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Restrictions — Justification — Housing policy — Services of general economic interest)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 October 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie v Woningstichting Sint Servatius
   (Case C-567/07) (1)

   (Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Restrictions - Justification - Housing policy - Services of general economic interest)
   2009/C 282/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie

      Defendant: Woningstichting Sint Servatius

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 58 EC, 86(2) EC, 87 EC and 88 EC — National legislation which, in the absence of prior authorisation by the Minister concerned, prohibits cross-border activities on the part of an undertaking required by statute to operate in furtherance of the housing policy of the Member State in question — Housing policy and public interest

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the exercise of cross-frontier activities of institutions approved under Article 70(1) of the Housing Law (Woningwet) in relation to housing matters subject to prior administrative authorisation, in so far as such legislation is not based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance and which are capable of adequately circumscribing the exercise by the national authorities of their discretion, a matter which falls to be determined by the national court.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case F-97/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — López Teruel v OHIM (Officials — Invalidity — Rejection of a request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2007 — López Teruel v OHIM
   (Case F-97/06) (1)

   (Officials - Invalidity - Rejection of a request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened)
   (2007/C 155/78)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Adelaida López Teruel (Guadalajara, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: M.I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of OHIM's decision of 6 October 2005 refusing the applicant's request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened for the purpose of assessing her incapacity to perform the duties corresponding to her post and her right to an invalidity pension.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2005 refusing Mrs López Teruel's request for an Invalidity Committee to be convened;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 24.


title: Case T-525/13: Action brought on 30 September 2013 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz/OHMI — Yves Saint Laurent (handbags)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/15

         Action brought on 30 September 2013 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz/OHMI — Yves Saint Laurent (handbags)
   (Case T-525/13)
   2013/C 359/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of Appeal of 8 July 2013 in case R 207/2012-3;

               —

               declare the registered Community design No. 613294-0001 invalid;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               furthermore, in case the other party intervenes in this case, order Yves Saint Laurent SAS to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘Handbags’ — registered Community design No 613294-0001.

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

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of individual character based on Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002.