title: Judgment of the Court of 30 January 2001 in Case C-36/98: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union, supported by French Republic, by Portuguese Republic, by Republic of Finland, and by Commission of the European Communities (Legal basis — Environment — Council decision approving the Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the river Danube — Article 130s(l) and (2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 175(1) and (2) EC) — Concept of "management of water resources")

text:
C 173/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                92/50, a non-maritime public transport service — such
                                                                                as the operation of scheduled local bus routes — by a
                                                                                legal person governed by public law;
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                —    in a situation such as that in the main proceedings,
                         of 25 January 2001                                            Directive 77/187 does not apply where there is no
                                                                                transfer of significant tangible assets between those two
                                                                                undertakings.
in Case C-172/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein oikeus): Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi,
                         Pentti Juntunen (1)                                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
(Directive 77/187/EEC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights
in the event of transfers of undertakings — Directive
92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Non-maritime
                      public transport services)
                           (2001/C 173/02)                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 January 2001
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                            in Case C-36/98: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the
                                                                            European Union, supported by French Republic, by Portu-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      guese Republic, by Republic of Finland, and by Com-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                    mission of the European Communities (1)
In Case C-172/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               (Legal basis — Environment — Council decision approving
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Korkein oikeus                  the Convention on cooperation for the protection and sus-
(Supreme Court), Finland, for a preliminary ruling in the                   tainable use of the river Danube — Article 130s(l) and (2)
proceedings pending before that court between Oy Liikenne                   of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 175(1) and
Ab and Pekka Liskojärvi, Pentti Juntunen — on the interpret-                   (2) EC) — Concept of ’management of water resources’)
ation of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of
14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the                                              (2001/C 173/03)
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26) — the Court                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                                        in the European Court Reports)
judgment on 25 January 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            In Case C-36/98: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde)
1.    The taking over by an undertaking of non-maritime public              v Council of the European Union (Agents: G. Houttuin and
      transport activities — such as the operation of scheduled local       D. Canga Fano), supported by French Republic (Agents:
      bus routes — previously operated by another undertaking,              K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal), by Portuguese Republic
      following a procedure for the award of a public service contract      (Agents: L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romão and P. Canelas de
      under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating            Castro), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch and
      to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service     T. Pyrind), and by Commission of the European Communities
      contracts, may fall within the material scope of Council Directive    (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono and F. de Sousa Fialho) — appli-
      77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of                cation for annulment of Council Decision 97/825/EC of
      the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of         24 November 1997 concerning the conclusion of the Conven-
      employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,          tion on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of
      businesses or parts of businesses, as set out in Article 1(1) of      the river Danube (OJ 1997 L 342, p. 18) — the Court,
      that directive.                                                       composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
                                                                            A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Cham-
2.    Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187 must be interpreted as               bers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón
      meaning that                                                          (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
      —     that directive may apply where there is no direct contrac-      for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2001,
            tual link between two undertakings which are successively       in which it:
            awarded, following procedures for, the award of public
            service contracts conducted in accordance with Directive        1.    Dismisses the action;
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 173/3
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                        As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the
3.    Orders the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the             competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the
      Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European               national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that,
      Communities to bear their own costs.                                 within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the
                                                                           objective examination of a client’s eyesight, that is to say, an
                                                                           examination which does not use a method under which the client
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
                                                                           alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is
                                                                           reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a
                                                                           category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as
                                                                           ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are
                                                                           not qualified medical doctors. It is for the national court to assess, in
                                                                           the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establish-
                                                                           ment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the
                                                                           competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.
                        of 1 February 2001                                 (1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.
in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis
Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun
and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express
Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Pro-
fessionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmo-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         logie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                                            of 1 February 2001
after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) —
National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying                   in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
out certain optical examinations — National legislation                    the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH
restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out                                       v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively
                       for ophthalmologists)                               (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
                                                                           Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant
                          (2001/C 173/04)                                  time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of
                                                                           goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of
                                                                                origin — Effect)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-108/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brus-                                 in the European Court Reports)
sels) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
pending before that court against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek                   In Case C-66/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision                        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly              (Finance Court), Bremen, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins               the proceedings pending before that court between D. Wandel
Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil                 GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation of
plaintiff — on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty            Article 75, Article 201(1)(a) and (2), Article 203(1) and
(now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC                Article 204(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49                 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                 (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth           of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges;                   J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,            Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it has                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ruled:                                                                     1 February 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-469/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 September 2010 — Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v Administración del Estado

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 28 September 2010 — Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD) v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-469/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federación de Comercio Electrónico y Marketing Directo (FECEMD)

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data be interpreted as precluding the application of national rules which, in the absence of the interested party’s consent, and in order to allow processing of his personal data that is necessary to satisfy a legitimate interest of the controller or of third parties to whom the data will be disclosed, not only require fundamental rights and freedoms not to be prejudiced, but also require the data to appear in public sources?

               2.

               Are the conditions for conferring on it direct effect, set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, met by the above-mentioned Article 7(f)?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case F-138/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/24

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-138/11)
   2012/C 65/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the recalculated proposal of the PMO

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 11 May 2011 annulling and replacing the decision of 22 October 2009;

               —

               establish the validity of the agreement concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights on the basis of the offer accepted in accordance with the calculation of the decision of 22 October 2009;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2011, expressly dismissing the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               in the alternative, acknowledge the damage suffered and grant the applicant the sum of EUR 6 207,71 by way of damages, plus interest for delay at two percentage points over the rate of the European Central Bank;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/2

      Assignment of Judges to Chambers
      (2010/C 288/04)
      On 14 September 2010, the General Court decided to set up eight Chambers of five Judges and eight Chambers of three Judges for the period from 14 September 2010 to 31 August 2013 and, on 20 September 2010, decided to assign the Judges for the period from 20 September 2010 until the date of the taking up of his duties by the Bulgarian Judge as follows:

            First Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Mr Vilaras, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka and Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judges.

            First Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber;

                  Ms Cremona, Judge;

                  Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judge.

            Second Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek, Mr Ciucă and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

            Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :
      Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber;

                  (a)

                  Mr Dehousse and Mr Ciucă, Judges;

                  (b)

                  Mr Dehousse and Mr Schwarcz, Judges;

                  (c)

                  Mr Ciucă and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

            Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Mr Vilaras, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka and Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judges.

            Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;

                  Mr Vilaras, Judge;

                  Ms Labucka, Judge.

            Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Mr O’Higgins and Mr Van der Woude, Judges.

            Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber;

                  Ms Jürimäe, Judge;

                  Mr Van der Woude, Judge.

            Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Ms Jürimäe, Mr O’Higgins and Mr Van der Woude, Judges.

            Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Mr Papasavvas, President of the Chamber;

                  Mr Vadapalas, Judge;

                  Mr O’Higgins, Judge.

            Sixth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Moavero Milanesi, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Wahl, Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Kanninen, Judges.

            Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Mr Moavero Milanesi, President of the Chamber;

                  Mr Wahl, Judge;

                  Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judge.

            Seventh Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Prek, Mr Ciucă and Mr Schwarcz, Judges.

            Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Mr Dittrich, President of the Chamber;

                  Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge;

                  Mr Prek, Judge.

            Eighth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges
         :
      Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Wahl, Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Kanninen, Judges.

            Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges
         :

                  Mr Truchot, President of the Chamber;

                  Ms Martins Ribeiro, Judge;

                  Mr Kanninen, Judge.

            For the period from 20 September 2010 until the date of the taking up of his duties by the Bulgarian Judge, the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber of four Judges to make up the extended formation will be the other two Judges of the formation initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge of the Chamber of three Judges which is not one of a pair of Chambers of three Judges required to provide additional Judges for each other for the purposes of making up an extended formation. The fifth Judge will be designated for one year in accordance with a rota in the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
      For the period from 20 September 2010 until the date of the taking up of his duties by the Bulgarian Judge, the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber of three Judges which is not one of a pair of Chambers of three Judges required to provide additional Judges for each other for the purposes of making up an extended formation will be, to make up the extended formation, the two Judges of the formation initially hearing the case and two Judges from the formation of four Judges designated according to the order laid down in Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.


title: Case T-33/06: Action brought on  19 January 2006  — Zenab v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/30

         Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Zenab v Commission
   (Case T-33/06)
   (2006/C 74/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Zenab SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey, P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities dated 9 November 2005 under reference 648599;

               —

               hold the Community liable for non-contractual damage and order the Commission to pay the applicant (i) the sum of EUR 36 707 as damages in respect of the costs incurred for the purposes of the call for proposals, and (ii) the amount of the non-pecuniary loss because of damage to reputation and the material loss resulting from the delay in the execution of the EuroVOD project and appoint an expert to assess that loss, as determined by an expert to be appointed by the Court;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 November 2005 rejecting the applicant's application for Community financial support within the framework of the MEDIA Plus programme (Call for Proposals INFSO/MEDIA/04/05), as well as compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by it because of the adoption of the contested decision.
   In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on two pleas in law. The first plea alleges unlawful delegation of its powers by the Commission to the technical consultation group appointed to determine the application for financial support submitted by the applicant.
   As part of the second plea in law, the applicant alleges that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment which, in its submission, justify the annulment of the contested decision. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the reasoning set out in the contested decision is insufficient and contradictory and does not enable the grounds justifying the rejection of its proposal to be understood.
   For the purposes of the action for damages, the applicant seeks, relying on the principle of the non-contractual liability of the Community, compensation for the loss allegedly suffered because of the erroneous determination of its proposal submitted within the framework of the call for proposals in question. The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to comply with its duty of diligence and sound administration and that such conduct constitutes a serious breach of Community law justifying the engagement of the Community's liability.


title: Case T-364/04: Action brought on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/20

         Action brought on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-364/04)
   (2004/C 314/51)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic Republic, represented by I. Khalkias and Eleni Evolopoulou, members of the State Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul or modify the contested decision. E 2004/561/EC/16.7.2004. (1)

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2), excluded from Community financing various expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables sector and in the sector of animal premiums, with the result that it is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure and is chargeable to the Hellenic Republic.
   More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to production aid for processors of peaches, pursuant to Regulation No 2201/96 (3), from which an amount was excluded on the ground that the minimum price was not complied with. In support of that limb of its action, the Hellenic Republic alleges that the provisions of Regulation No 2201/96 and of Regulation No 504/79 (4) were misinterpreted, that the principle of proportionality was infringed and that the factual circumstances were wrongly assessed.
   Further, in the same decision expenditure relating to the sector of production aid for processing tomatoes was also excluded, on the ground that there were direct payments of the aid to tomato producer organisations rather than to the processors. In support of that limb of its action, the Hellenic Republic relies on exceptional circumstances, that is to say, the bankruptcy of processing undertakings and serious cash-flow difficulties, maintaining that there was no ensuing economic harm to the Community. It also alleges that the factual circumstances were wrongly assessed, that the principle of proportionality was infringed and that Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (5) and Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (6) were infringed.
   Another part of the expenditure excluded concerns expenditure for animal premiums. The Hellenic Republic asks that the contested decision be annulled and on that limb it is maintained that the Commission erred as to the facts, wrongly assessed the factual circumstances, ignored crucial evidence and gave erroneous reasons for its decision. It also alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Official Journal L 250 of 24.7.2004, p. 21.

      (2)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/97 of 19 March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the system of production aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 1997 L 78, 20.03.1997, p. 14).

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995, p. 6).


title: Case C-545/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 December 2007 — Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 December 2007 — Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD
   (Case C-545/07)
   (2008/C 51/57)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   Referring court
   Sofiyski gradski sad
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Apis-Hristovich EOOD

      Defendant: Lakorda AD
   Questions referred

               1.

               How are the terms ‘permanent transfer’ and ‘temporary transfer’ to be interpreted and to be delimited in relation to each other for the purpose of:

                           —

                           determining whether extraction within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC (1) from a database accessible by electronic means has taken place,

                           —

                           at what point in time is it to be assumed that extraction within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC from a database accessible by electronic means has taken place,

                           —

                           what is the significance, for the assessment of extraction, of the fact that the content of a database extracted in this way has served to create a new and amended database?

               2.

               Which criterion is to be applied in interpreting the concept ‘extraction of a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively’ if the databases are divided into separate subgroups and are used in these subgroups, which are independent commercial products? Is the size of the databases in the entire commercial product or the size of the databases in the relevant subgroup to be used as the criterion?

               3.

               In interpreting the concept ‘a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively’, is the fact that a certain type of data allegedly extracted was obtained by the database maker from a source which is not generally accessible, so that it was possible to procure the data only by extracting them from the databases of that very database maker, to be used as a criterion?

               4.

               What criteria are to be applied when determining whether extraction from a database accessible by electronic means has taken place? Can it be regarded as an indication that extraction has taken place if the maker's database has a particular structure, notes, references, commands, fields, hyperlinks and editorial text and these elements are also found in the database of the person who has committed the alleged infringement? In the carrying out of this assessment, are the various original organisational structures of the two opposing databases relevant?

               5.

               When determining whether extraction has taken place, is the computer program/the system for database management material if it is not part of the database?

               6.

               Since, according to Directive 96/9/EC and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, ‘a substantial part of the database from a quantitative and qualitative point of view’ is linked to substantial investment in the obtaining, verification or presentation of a database: how are these concepts to be interpreted in relation to legislative measures, and measures having individual application, which have been adopted by executive State bodies and are publicly accessible, to their official translations and to case-law?

      (1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20).


title: Case C-296/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 306 to 310 — Special scheme for travel agents — Discrepancies between language versions — National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers — Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’ )

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-296/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)
   2013/C 344/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. — S. Pilczer, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: The Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller and by J. Očková, Agents), the Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, Agent), the Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent), the Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents), the Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, Agents), the Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the French Republic;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case T-524/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014  — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL — Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO — Relative ground for refusal — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Volvo Trademark v OHIM — Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries (LOVOL)
   (Case T-524/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark LOVOL - Earlier Community word and figurative marks and earlier national figurative marks VOLVO - Relative ground for refusal - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2014/C 462/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Zhangjiakou, China) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2011 (Case R 1870/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Volvo Trademark Holding AB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-205/03 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 July 2006 — Federación Española de Empresa de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN), formerly Federación Nacional de Empresa de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Management bodies of the Spanish national health system — Medical treatment — Definition of undertaking — Payment conditions imposed on suppliers of medical goods and equipment)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/1

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 July 2006 — Federación Española de Empresa de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN), formerly Federación Nacional de Empresa de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-205/03 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Management bodies of the Spanish national health system - Medical treatment - Definition of ‘undertaking’ - Payment conditions imposed on suppliers of medical goods and equipment)
   (2006/C 212/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Federación Española de Empresa de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN), formerly Federación Nacional de Empresa de Instrumentación Científica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (represented by: J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas de Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, abogados)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent, and G. Barling QC), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz Abad, L. Fraguas Gadea and F. Díez Moreno, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 4 March 2003 in Case T-319/99 FENIN v Commission in which the Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the Commission's decision of 26 August 1999 (SG(99) D/7.040) relating to the organisations which manage the Spanish national health system concerning the conditions for payment imposed by those organisations on their suppliers of health products and other allegedly anti-competitive practices of such organisations — Definition of ‘undertaking’
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) to pay the costs of these proceedings;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 184, 02.08.2003.


title: Case T-296/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/24

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh v Commission
   (Case T-296/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 245/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erbslöh AG (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               Erbslöh AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-143/11: Action brought on 9 March 2011 — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico v OHIM — Fédération française de rugby (Emblem with a drawing of a rooster)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/24

         Action brought on 9 March 2011 — Consorzio vino Chianti Classico v OHIM — Fédération française de rugby (Emblem with a drawing of a rooster)
   (Case T-143/11)
   2011/C 152/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Consorzio vino Chianti Classico (Radda in Chianti, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and G. Ciccone, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fédération française de rugby (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2011 in case R 43/2010-4 and the Community trade mark application No 5713888 shall be prevented for registration, as of the date of the opposition;

               —

               Subordinately, alter the above mentioned decision and prevent the application for the contested sign for registration for wines in class 33; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay its own costs, as well as those of the applicant, also for the proceedings in front of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘F.F.R’ with the description ‘orange-yellow: PMS reference 1235C; gold: PMS reference 145C; red: PMS reference 1795C’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 5713888

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian trade mark application No FI2007C00984 of the figurative mark (collective) ‘CONSORZIO VINO CHIANTI CLASSICO — CHIANTI CLASSICO’, for goods in class 33; Italian collective trade mark registration No 856049 of the figurative mark ‘CHIANTI CLASSICO — CONSORZIO DEL MARCHIO STORICO’, for goods in class 33; Italian collective trade mark registration No 856219 of the figurative mark ‘CHIANTI CLASSICO — CHIANTI CLASSICO — CONSORZIO’, for goods in class 33; Italian collective trade mark registration No 1006311 of the figurative mark ‘CHIANTI CLASSICO — SINCE 1716’, for goods in class 33; Italian collective trade mark registration No 856048 of the figurative mark ‘CHIANTI CLASSICO — CONSORZIO DEL MARCHIO STORICO’, for goods in class 33; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1215633 of the figurative mark ‘CONSORTIO VINO CHIANTI CLASSICO’, for goods in class 33; German and France well known trade mark ‘CHIANTI CLASSICO — CONSORZIO VINO CHIANTI CLASSICO’, for goods in class 33; and non registered trade mark used in the course of trade in Germany and France ‘CHIANTI CLASSICO — CONSORZIO VINO CHIANTI CLASSICO’, for goods in class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly concluded that there is no likelihood of confusion between the contested sign and the applicant’s trademarks and it did not take into adequate consideration the enhanced distinctiveness of the applicant’s marks; (ii) failed to consider the detriment to the applicant’s trademarks and the unfair advantage that the contested sign would gain if its registration were allowed; and (iii) failed to consider the specificity of the case, that in the nature of the collective trademark of the applicant’s mark, with an institutional function that makes it one of the States hallmarks.


title: Case T-20/02: Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 109/52               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
Action brought on 30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH                     Grounds of claim:             —     incorrect application of
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                         Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
              Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                               (EC) No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                —     infringement of Regulation
                          (Case T-20/02)                                                                     (EC) No 40/94 on account
                                                                                of failure to comply with
                                                                                Article 12 thereof.
                        (2002/C 109/100)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)           Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   Action brought on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo Chemi-
30 January 2002 by Interquell GmbH, of Wehringen (Germ-                  cal Co., Ltd against the Commission of the European
any), represented by G.J. Hodapp, lawyer. A further party to                                        Communities
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was SCA Nutrition
Ltd, of Lichfield (United Kingdom).                                                                (Case T-22/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (2002/C 109/101)
—     annul Decision R 264/2002-2 adopted on 27 November                                   (Language of the case: English)
      2001 by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for
      Harmonisation in the Internal Market;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 7 February 2002 by Sumitomo
                                                                         Chemical Co., Ltd, represented by Mr Martin Klusmann
                                                                         and Ms Vanessa Turner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Düsseldorf (Germany).
Applicant for the Com-         the applicant                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     annul the defendant’s Decision C(2001)3695-final of
The Community trade            the pictorial mark ‘HAPPY DOG’                  21 November 2001 in Case No. COMP/E-1/37.512 —
mark applied for:              for goods in Class 31 (feeding-                 Vitamins as far as Sumitomo Chemical Company is
                               stuffs for dogs) — application                  concerned
                               No 290577
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       SCA Nutrition Ltd
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-
ings:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade-mark            right    the United Kingdom verbal and
opposed:                       pictorial marks ‘HAPPIDOG’ for            The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in
                               goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs          case T-15/02 BASF/Commission (1).
                               for dogs)
Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the trade mark               In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:
sition Division:               application
                                                                         —     The Commission was time-barred from taking the prohib-
Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal             ition Decision. Contrary to the defendant’s view that the
Appeal:                                                                        rules on limitation periods have no bearing on the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 20 March 2002 in Case T-358/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "TRUCKCARD" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
15.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 144/43
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      —    ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking
                                                                                and payment processing programming; providing of food
                                                                                and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
                           20 March 2002                                              accommodation’ within Class 42;
                                                                           2.    As to the remainder, dismisses the action;
in Case T-356/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                      3.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                      defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
                                                                                own costs.
(Community trade mark — ‘CARCARD’ — Absolute
grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation                (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                           (EC) No 40/94)
                          (2002/C 144/90)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                20 March 2002
In Case T-356/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
                                                                           in Case T-358/00: DaimlerChrysler AG v Office for
(Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
nen): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  (Community trade mark — ‘TRUCKCARD’ — Absolute
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000                      grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(Case R 477/1999-3) relating to registration of the word                                              (EC) No 40/94)
‘CARCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-                                      (2002/C 144/91)
gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:                                                     (Language of the case: German)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            In Case T-358/00, DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart
      Designs) of 12 September 2000 (Case R 477/1999-3) as                 (Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office for
      regards the following categories of goods and services:              Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and D. Schen-
                                                                           nen): Action brought against the decision of the Third Board
      —    ‘stationary and transportable data processing equipment;        of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
           programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000
           image processing’ within Class 9;                               (Case R 569/1999-3) relating to registration of the word
                                                                           ‘TRUCKCARD’ as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
      —    ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,            of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Men-
           namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing         gozzi and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
           including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for       a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:
           services and guarantees’ within Class 36;
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      —    ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) of 12 September 2000 (Case R 569/1999-3) as
                                                                                regards the following categories of goods and services:
      —    ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
           phones, speech recording services, information services;              —    stationary and transportable data processing equipment;
           telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech                     programmes on data carriers for data and/or text and/or
           recording services, information services’ within Class 38;                 image processing’ within Class 9;
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/44               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
     —     ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,            sets imported from Turkey — the Court of First Instance
           namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing         (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
           including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for       K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
           services and guarantees’ within Class 36;                       order on 21 March 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
     —     ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;
                                                                           1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
     —     ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
           phones, speech recording services, information services;
           telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech          2.    The Commission is to pay all the costs.
           recording services, information services’ within Class 38;
     —     ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking       (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
           and payment processing programming; providing of food
           and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
           accommodation’ within Class 42;
2.   As to the remainder, dismisses the action;
3.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
     defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
     own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                of 4 March 2002
                                                                           in Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und
                                                                           Einzelhandel GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
                                                                                measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                        of 21 March 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 144/93)
in Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V. v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
         Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                         (2002/C 144/92)                                   In Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhan-
                                                                           del GmbH, established in Essen (Germany), represented by
                                                                           D. Ehle, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         supported by the Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), v
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot
                                                                           and M. Núñez Müller) — application for annulment of the
                                                                           Commission’s decision C (2000) 1685 final of 29 June 2000,
In Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V., established in Antwerp                     addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and relating to
(Belgium), represented by M. Famchon, lawyer, with an address              a remission of import duties — the Court of First Instance
for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Kingdom of the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and
Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster), v                  R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot                  made an order on 4 March 2002, the operative part of which
and J. Stuyck) — application for annulment of the Com-                     is as follows:
mission’s decision C(1999) 2286 final (REC 12/98) of 22 July
1999 declaring that post-clearance recovery should be effected
and refusing remission of import duties in respect of television           1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;


title: Case T-890/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/31

         Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland/Commission
   (Case T-890/16)
   (2017/C 063/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Scandlines Danmark ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision dated 30 September 2016 (the Contested Decision), concerning certain aid measures granted to certain third parties regarding the financing of the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link Project;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the potential overcompensation involved in the railway fees constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the gratuitous use of State property constitutes existing aid authorised by the Construction Decision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State guarantees to the third party concerned constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the capital injections constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State loans constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the State aid exceeding the amount authorised by the Planning Decision constitutes existing aid.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the tax advantages constitute existing aid authorised by the Planning Decision.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the Contested Aid Measures for the planning phase have been authorised in the Construction Decision.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 11 July 2002 in Case T-205/99: Hyper Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Customs duties — Importation of television sets from India — Invalid certificates of origin — Application for remission of import duties — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Rights of the defence — Special situation)

text:
C 219/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14.9.2002
2.     Annuls Articles 3 of Decision 1999/84 in so far as it obliges            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       the Kingdom of Spain to recover State aid granted in the form
       of debt cancellation by public bodies.                                                         of 12 June 2002
3.     Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                           in Case T-66/00: B v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
4.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and 30 % of the
       costs incurred by the applicant.
                                                                           (Officials — Education allowance — Dependent child allow-
                                                                            ance — Conditions of grant — Recovery of undue payment)
5.     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/41)
( 1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-66/00: B, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), rep-
                                                                           resented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March
                             11 July 2002                                  1999 discontinuing, with effect from 1 September 1997, the
                                                                           education allowance and dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                           the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
in Case T-205/99: Hyper Srl v Commission of the Euro-                      composed of: M. Vilaras, President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengoz-
                        pean Communities (1)                               zi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                           given a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
(Customs duties — Importation of television sets from India
— Invalid certificates of origin — Application for remission               1.     Dismisses the application;
of import duties — Article 13(1) of Regulation (EEC)
   No 1430/79 — Rights of the defence — Special situation)                 2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                           (2002/C 219/40)                                 (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                     (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-205/99, Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, with an                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer and M. Nuñez-                                            9 July 2002
Müller): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
REM 14/98 of 5 February 1999 finding that the remission of
                                                                           in Case T-333/00: Rougemarine SARL v Commission of
import duties due from the applicant in respect of television
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
sets imported from India is not justified, the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President,
K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a          (Programme encouraging the development and distribution
judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:                                     of European audiovisual works (MEDIA II) — Decision to
                                                                               award financial support — Refusal — Implied reasons)
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2002/C 219/42)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-333/00, Rougemarine SARL, established in Paris
                                                                           (France), represented by T. Levy and O. Rezlan, lawyers, with


title: Case C-523/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — proceedings brought by A (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Substantive scope — Definition of civil matters — Decision relating to the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home — Child’s habitual residence — Protective measures — Jurisdiction)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)) — proceedings brought by A
   (Case C-523/07) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Substantive scope - Definition of ‘civil matters’ - Decision relating to the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home - Child’s habitual residence - Protective measures - Jurisdiction)
   2009/C 141/22
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 1(2)(d), 8(1), 13(1) and 20(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Enforcement of a single decision concerning the immediate taking into care of a child and placement outside the family home, adopted as a public-law decision in connection with child protection — Situation of a child with a permanent residence in one Member State but staying in another Member State with no fixed dwelling place

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision ordering that a child be immediately taken into care and placed outside his original home is covered by the term ‘civil matters’, for the purposes of that provision, where that decision was adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection.

               2.

               The concept of ‘habitual residence’ under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment. To that end, in particular the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay on the territory of a Member State and the family’s move to that State, the child’s nationality, the place and conditions of attendance at school, linguistic knowledge and the family and social relationships of the child in that State must be taken into consideration. It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances specific to each individual case.

               3.

               A protective measure, such as the taking into care of children, may be decided by a national court under Article 20 of Regulation No 2201/2003 if the following conditions are satisfied:

                           —

                           the measure must be urgent;

                           —

                           it must be taken in respect of persons in the Member State concerned, and

                           —

                           it must be provisional.

                     The taking of the measure and its binding nature are determined in accordance with national law. After the protective measure has been taken, the national court is not required to transfer the case to the court of another Member State having jurisdiction. However, in so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the national court which has taken provisional or protective measures must inform, directly or through the central authority designated under Article 53 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the court of another Member State having jurisdiction.

               4.

               Where the court of a Member State does not have jurisdiction at all, it must declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction, but is not required to transfer the case to another court. However, in so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the national court which has declared of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction must inform, directly or through the central authority designated under Article 53 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the court of another Member State having jurisdiction.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.01.2008.


title: Case T-68/09: Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2014  — Soliver v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in carglass — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Single and continuous infringement — Participation in the infringement)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2014 — Soliver v Commission
   (Case T-68/09) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in carglass - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement))
   2014/C 421/36
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Soliver NV (Roulers, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams, J. Bocken and T. Baumé, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, M. Kellerbauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(d) and Article 2(d) of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009, in so far as Soliver NV was thereby found to have participated, from 19 November 2001 to 11 March 2003, in an unlawful cartel on the carglass market in the European Economic Area (EEA) and a fine of EUR 4 3 96  000 was imposed on it on that basis;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case T-23/13: Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/19

         Action brought on 16 January 2013 — Senz Technologies/OHIM — Impliva (Umbrellas)
   (Case T-23/13)
   2013/C 101/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Senz Technologies BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Hoyng and C. Zeri, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impliva BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) dated 26 September 2012 in Case R 2459/2010-3;

               —

               Uphold the arguments put forward before the General Court and declare the registration of the Registered Community Design with no. 000579032-0002 to be valid;

               —

               Order the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The trade design ‘Umbrellas’ — Registered Community design No 000579032-0002

      Proprietor of the Community trade design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade design: Impliva BV

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on Articles 4 and 9 Council Regulation No 6/2002

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) and Articles 6 in connection with 25 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case F-28/16: Action brought on 2 June 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/45

         Action brought on 2 June 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-28/16)
   (2016/C 296/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to adopt, within a reasonable period, the measures for compliance with the judgment in Case F-96/13 and annulment of the decision of 22 December 2015, which, by reassigning the applicant, with retroactive effect, from the delegation to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in East Jerusalem to DG Mobility and Transport, Directorate of Shared Resources MOVE/ENER in Brussels, constitutes a decision confirming refusal to comply with the judgment referred to.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision not to adopt the measures to comply with the judgment in Case F-96/13 and the decision of 22 December 2015 to reassign the applicant, in the interest of the service, from the EU delegation to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (East Jerusalem) to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (MOVE) in Brussels with retroactive effect from 1 January 2013, a merely confirmatory decision which has already been implemented for over almost 3 years;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-111/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 — Kerelov v Commission (Officials — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 — Kerelov v Commission
   (Case F-111/07)
   (Officials - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)
   (2008/C 64/106)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of EPSO's decision of 14 December 2006 not to ask the applicant to fill out an application form with a view to his possible admission to a competition and for compensation for the damage he has suffered.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.


title: Case C-229/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by Susanne Müller

text:
C 245/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
1.    Are goods which have been cleared for Community                          2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
      transit removed from customs supervision if the transit                  States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
      document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-                     ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
      ment?                                                                    particular Article 15 thereof; or
2.    If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:                   —     Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed                    the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
      from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to                  the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
      ensure their identification was opened and the goods                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
      were partially unloaded, without the consignment first                   ‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof
      being duly produced for customs, even though the
      operation was arranged with the persons in question by             preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
      customs investigation officers operating incognito and             are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
      observed in every detail by those officers?                        has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
                                                                         displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
3.    If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the               gible manner?
      affirmative:
      Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
      Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs               (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
      investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
      infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
      the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
      used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
      by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
      repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
      from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
      munity transit?                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                         di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.                                                                    Dario Lo Bue
                                                                                (Case C-233/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/08)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of                    (District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by                    Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                         Susanne Müller                                  the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
                                                                         Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:
                         (Case C-229/01)                                 (1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
                         (2001/C 245/07)                                       Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
                                                                               cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
                                                                               curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         party liability in connection with the use of motor
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                      vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-                      vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June                    goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a                    insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller                  consumer price index?
on the following questions:
                                                                         (2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Does                                                                           Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
                                                                               Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
—     Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)                      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                    inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
      relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of               rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
      foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version              coefficients for determining the premium and differential
      prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of                 premium rate systems under which the premium payable
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March                   depends on the claims record?


title: Case T-89/09: Action brought on 25 February 2009 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Action brought on 25 February 2009 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission
   (Case T-89/09)
   2009/C 129/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (Creuzburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Heithecker and F. von Alemann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 21 October 2008 in the procedure ‘State aid N 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH’;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 15 December 2008 in the procedure ‘CP 195/2007 — Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH’;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests, first, the Commission’s Decision of 21 October 2008 in the procedure State aid N 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH by which the Commission raised no objections to a number of support measures for the construction of a new sawmill in favour of Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, one of the applicant’s direct competitors, and, second, the Commission’s Decision of 15 December 2008 by which the Commission terminated the complaint procedure CP 195/2007 pending before it in respect of those measures.
   The applicant relies on seven pleas in law in support of its action.
   First, the contested decisions infringed Article 88(2) and (3) EC and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) in that the defendant erroneously used the legal position at the time the support measures were granted as a basis for its assessment of the notified support measures and thus came to a conclusion which is incompatible with objective law.
   Secondly, the applicant submits, in the alternative, in the event that the Court should reject the first plea, that the defendant infringed Article 88(3) EC and Regulation No 659/1999 in that it carried out the procedure for notified aid under Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 although the relevant aid had already been granted.
   Thirdly, the defendant infringed Article 88(2) and (3) EC in that it did not initiate the formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties of assessment.
   Fourthly, the defendant infringed its obligation to conduct a diligent and impartial examination because it manifestly failed to deal at all with a number of the applicant’s main arguments.
   Fifthly, the applicant submits that there are deficiencies in the statement of reasons for the contested decisions.
   Sixthly, the defendant infringed the applicant’s right to be involved in the procedure to the extent appropriate in that it did not inform the applicant as to the type of procedure it had chosen.
   Seventhly, the defendant infringed Article 87(1) EC and Article 88(3) EC in that its calculation of the aid value of the guarantees was incorrect.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-429/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/37

         Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)
   (Case T-429/15)
   (2015/C 320/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘MAD CATZ’ — Community trade mark application No 11 390 846

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 2176/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 June 2014 in Opposition B 2 182 312;

               —

               reject the opposed mark for all goods in class 25;

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.