title: Case T-400/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/37

         Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission
   (Case T-400/17)
   (2017/C 293/46)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (‘the CLP Regulation’), in so far as it classifies and labels the substance anthraquinone, by inserting the following entry in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council: Index number 606-151-00-4; International Chemical Identification: anthraquinone; EC No: 201-549-0; CAS No: 84-65-1; Hazard Class and Category Code: Carc. IB; Hazard Statement Code: H350; Pictogram, Signal Word Code: GHS08 Dgr; Hazard Statement Code: H350;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation

                           —

                           That classification and labelling are not based on sufficient evidence obtained from reliable and acceptable studies demonstrating a causal relationship between the substance anthraquinone as such and an increased incidence of tumours in experimental animals within the meaning of points 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and of principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

                           —

                           As a consequence of the unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation, there was a breach in particular of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-29/05: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Deltafina v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Rights of the defence — Definition of the relevant market — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Role as leader — Cooperation)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/28

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2010 — Deltafina v Commission
      (Case T-29/05) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Rights of the defence - Definition of the relevant market - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Role as leader - Cooperation)
      (2010/C 288/53)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Deltafina SpA (Orvieto, Italy) (represented by: R. Jacchia, A. Terranova, I. Picciano, F. Ferraro, J.-F. Bellis and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato and, subsequently, É. Gippini Fournier and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238.B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) and, in the alternative, a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in the decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Deltafina SpA by Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Spain) at EUR 6 120 000.

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

                  3.

                  Orders Deltafina to bear three quarters of its own costs and pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission and the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs and pay one quarter of those incurred by Deltafina.

         (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case F-130/12: Action brought on 2 November 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/29

         Action brought on 2 November 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-130/12)
   2013/C 71/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cortese and A. Salerno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to grant the double dependant child allowance under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 4 August 2008, making the applicant’s right to the grant of the double dependant child allowance subject to the condition that ‘all of the specific costs required by the nature of the handicap and remaining chargeable’ to the applicant are higher than EUR 333.19 per month, and the decision of 24 October 2008 of the Head of the Individual Rights Unit, refusing in the present case to grant the double allowance, as confirmed after the reopening of the file by the Head of the Individual Rights Unit of 5 December 2011, which was itself confirmed by the decision of 20 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified to the applicant on 23 July 2012;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-508/10: Action brought on 25 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/14

         Action brought on 25 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-508/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by requiring third-country nationals and their family members applying for long-term resident status to pay high and unfair charges, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/109/EC (1) and, accordingly, its obligations under Article 258 TFEU;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission regards the amount of EUR 201 to EUR 830, depending on the case, for the processing of an application for long-term resident status as disproportionate by comparison with the sum of EUR 30 which EU citizens are required to pay for a residence permit. Such a procedure cannot, therefore, be regarded as ‘fair’. In the Commission’s view, irrespective of whether they constitute payment for actual costs arising, such high charges can be ‘a means of hindering the exercise of the right of residence’ within the meaning of recital 10 in the preamble to the directive, and thus have a deterrent effect on third-country nationals wishing to avail themselves of the rights afforded to them by the directive. Moreover, this is supported by the fact that the Commission is receiving complaints in that respect from citizens.

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).


title: Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-147/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96             I EN |                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 197/9
Action brought on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                           turnover taxes ( 1 ), to be interpreted as including the services
                                     Germany                                   of an arbitrator ?
                            ( Case C- 1 3 9/96 )
                                ( 96/C 197/ 15                                 (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ; EE 09 Fl , p . 54 .
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                              Action brought on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                                                      Germany
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-146/96)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/17 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with                    Communities on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
       Directives       93/48/EEC ( 1 ),           93/49/EEC (2 )    and       European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
       93/61 /EEC ( 3 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has                   Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
       under those Directives;                                                  Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                       1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
in Case C-135/96 (4 ); the time-limit for transposition                               adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 expired in each case on 31 December 1993 .                                           Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the
                                                                                control of potato ring rot { 1 ), the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 H     OJ  No L 250 , 7 . 10 .    1993 , p .  1.                                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 (2 )  OJ  No L 250 , 7. 10 .      1993 , p . 9.
 (3 )  OJ  No L 250,  7 . 10 .     1993 , p . 19 .                              2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 (4)   OJ  No C 180 ,  22 . 6 .    1996 , p . 23 .
                                                                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                                in Case C-135/96 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                                expired on 15 November 1993 .
                                                                                i 1 ) OJ No L 259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                ( 2 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996, p . 23 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
 Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of 15 March 1996 in
      the case of Bernd von Hoffmann v. Finanzamt Trier
                              ( Case C-145 /96 )
                                  ( 96/C 197/ 16
                                                                                Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands against the Commission of the European
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                       Communities
  European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                                                    (Case C-147/96)
  ( Finance Court) Rheinland-Pfalz (Third Senate ) of
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/18 )
  15 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
  on 3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd
  von Hoffmann v . Finanzamt Trier on the following                              An action against the Commission of the European
  question :                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of
  Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Title VI ( third group : ' services of             the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and J. S. van
  consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers,                          den Oosterkamp, acting as agents .
  accountants and other similar services, as well as data
  processing and the supplying of information') of the Sixth                     The applicant claims that the Court should declare void the
   Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             Commission's decision communicated in its letter of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 197/10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             6 . 7 . 96
26 February 1996 (*) and order the Commission to pay the                    of public health. The ministerial order of 7 February
costs .                                                                      1996 ( 2 ) constitutes a supplementary legal guarantee of
                                                                            this .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                       — Breach of Article 103 of Council Decision 91 /482/EEC
— Breach of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Directive 92/46/EEC laying             on the association of the overseas countries and
    down the health rules for the production and placing on                 territories with the European Economic Community
   the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and
   milk-based products                                                      As a result of the abovementioned ministerial order the
                                                                            authorities of the Dutch Antilles guarantee a level of
   The contested decision is based on irrelevant facts,                     protection identical to that provided by the relevant
   particularly in regard to the veterinary situation. As                   Community legislation. The requirements for the
   regards the processing of dairy products in the Dutch                    application of Article 103 are not therefore satisfied
   Antillean Dairy Industry, the inspectors ' report provided               because the export from the Dutch Antilles concerns
    for under Article 23 (4 ) of Directive 92/46/EEC                        exclusively products made from milk or milk products
   concludes that dairy products originating in the                         from Member States of the European Community.
    Community are processed in accordance with that
    Directive .                                                             In contrast with countries on the list of third countries
                                                                            established by Decision 94/70/EC or Decision
— Breach       of Article    31     of   Directive    92/46/EEC;             95/340/EC, the Dutch Antilles offer guarantees
    alternatively, breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty                   regarding Chapter II of Directive 92/46/EEC . The
                                                                            failure, even so, to place the Dutch Antilles on the list of
   Although the Standing Veterinary Committee ( SVC )                       third countries for the purposes of Directive 92/46/EEC
    discussed the veterinary inspectors' report at its meeting              constitutes arbitrary discrimination . The contested
    on 13 and 14 February 1996 , it made no                                 decision is therefore contrary to Article 103 ( 2 ) of
    recommendations .       As     far   as   the    Netherlands            Decision 91 /482/EEC .
    Government is aware, a draft of the contested decision
    has also not been submitted to the SVC, as required by
    Article 31 of Directive 92/46/EEC .                                (*) Letter to the Minister President of the Dutch Antilles stating
                                                                            that the Dutch Antilles is not included in the list of third
                                                                            countries established in accordance with Article 23 of Council
— Breach of the principle that a party has a right to be                    Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health
    heard .                                                                 rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk,
                                                                            heat-treated milk and milk-based products ( OJ No L 268, 14 . 9 .
— Breach of the principle that measures must be                             1992 , p . 1 ).
    meticulously prepared .                                            (2 ) Order prohibiting the export of dairy products from the Dutch
                                                                            Antilles to the customs territory of the European Community
                                                                            without a licence from the Minister for public health and
— Breach of Article 2 ( 2 ) of the WTO agreement on the                     environmental hygiene. A licence is issued only if the production
    application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures                      has taken place in accordance with the procedures and in
                                                                            establishments equivalent to those described in Chapter II of
    The contested decision infringes the prohibition on                     Directive 92/46/EEC . Moreover, that licence is issued
    adopting sanitary measures in such a way that they may                  exclusively for products produced from materials originating in
    constitute a disguised restriction on international trade .             the Community or at least in countries on the list drawn up
                                                                            pursuant to Directive 92/46/EEC.
    The contested decision amounts to a complete
    prohibition on the import of dairy products originating
    in the Dutch Antilles, even though, according to the
    Commission's findings, the products comply with the
    applicable general principles and rules of Directive
     92/46/EEC .
— Breach of the principle of proportionality
                                                                       Appeal brought on 3 May 1996 by Roberto Galtieri against
    Antillean domestic milk production is negligibly small             the judgment delivered on 27 February 1996 by the First
     and is consumed exclusively on the local market. The              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-235 /94 between R. Galtieri and the
     establishment inspected uses hydrated milk fat and milk
     powder from the Community as the raw material for the                                    European Parliament ( J )
     preparation of its products. To apply to the Dutch                                          (Case C-150/96 P)
     Antilles the current requirements regarding the standard                                      ( 96/C 197/19 )
     and enforcement of veterinary legislation, which are
     relevant exclusively in the case of the use of milk from
     the establishment's own dairy herd or at least from dairy          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February
     cattle elsewhere in the Dutch Antilles, is thus not                1996 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
     necessary in order to achieve the aim of Directive                 the European Communities in Case T-235/94 between R.
     92/46/EEC, namely to ensure a high level of protection             Galtieri and the European Parliament was brought before


title: Case C-635/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC — Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies — Article 16(2)(a) and (b) — Company resulting from a cross-border merger — Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States — Participation rights — Failure to provide identical rights)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/17

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-635/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Article 16(2)(a) and (b) - Company resulting from a cross-border merger - Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States - Participation rights - Failure to provide identical rights)
   2013/C 225/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and C. Wissels, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) — Employee participation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.


title: Case C-500/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — National restrictions — Express courier undertakings — National licensing system)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/20

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-500/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Postal services - Directive 97/67/EC - National restrictions - Express courier undertakings - National licensing system)
   2010/C 346/33
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and D. Tsagkaraki, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by continuing to apply Ministerial Decree No A1/44351/3608 of 12 October 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002, and in particular Article 9(1) and (2) thereof;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-281/08 P: Order of the Court of 24 November 2009 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment — Access to documents — Capacity of a regional parliament to be a party to legal proceedings)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/13

         Order of the Court of 24 November 2009 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-281/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Access to documents - Capacity of a regional parliament to be a party to legal proceedings)
   2010/C 51/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (represented by: S.R. Laskowski, Privatdozentin, and J. Caspar, Professor)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Mertenczuk, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 in Case T-236/06 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, by which the Court rejected as inadmissible an application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 10 March 2006 and 23 June 2006 refusing to grant the applicant access to the document SEK(2005) 420, of 22 March 2005 containing a legal analysis of a draft framework decision, under discussion in the Council, on the retention of data processed and stored in relation to the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of data transmitted by means of the public communications networks, for purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences, including terrorism — Capacity of a regional parliament to be a party to legal proceedings — Right to be heard before a court — Notion of ‘legal person’ in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Landtag Schleswig-Holstein is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-225/17 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2017 in joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/15

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2017 by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 17 February 2017 in joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-225/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Sea Shipping Lines Co., IRISL Europe GmbH, IRISL Marine Services and Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Shipping Computer Services Co., Soroush Sarzamin Asatir Ship Management, South Way Shipping Agency Co. Ltd, Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Lester QC, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 in Joined Cases T-14/14 and T-87/14

               —

               determine the case before the General Court and in particular:

                           —

                           annul the ‘October 2013 measures’ (Council Decision 2013/497 (1) amending Decision 2010/413 (2) and Council Regulation 971/2013 (3) amending Regulation 267/2012 (4)) and the ‘November 2013 measures’ (Council Decision 2013/685 (5) amending Decision 2010/413 and Council Implementing Regulation 1203/2013 (6) implementing Regulation 267/2012) insofar as those restrictive measures against Iran concerned the appellants;

                           —

                           alternatively, declare the October 2013 measures inapplicable insofar as they apply to the appellants by reason of illegality; and

               —

               order that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal in relation to the declaration of inapplicability, the appellants rely on the following pleas in law:

               1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the October 2013 measures had a valid legal basis.

               2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the October 2013 measures did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and ne bis in idem, or the right to an effective remedy.

               3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the respondent had not misused its powers in enacting the October 2013 measures.

               4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the respondent had not infringed the appellants’ rights of defence.

               5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred finding that the October 2013 measures were not an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the appellants’ fundamental rights.

         In support of the appeal in relation to the application for annulment, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in failing to find that the respondent made a number of manifest errors of assessment in finding that the listing criteria in the November 2013 measures were fulfilled as regards each of the appellants.

               2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that the respondent had not infringed the appellants’ rights of defence in re-listing them in the November 2013 measures.

               3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred in finding that re-listing the appellants in the November 2013 measures did not infringe the principles of res judicata, legal certainty, legitimate expectations and ne bis in idem, or the right to an effective remedy.

               4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the General Court erred finding that the November 2013 measures were not an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the appellants’ fundamental rights.

      (1)  Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 272, p. 46).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010, L 195, p. 39).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 272, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012, L 88, p. 1).

      (5)  Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 316, p. 46).

      (6)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1203/2013 of 26 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013, L 316, p. 1).


title: Case T-631/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014  — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/16

         Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Roland v OHIM (Nuance of the colour red for shoe soles)
   (Case T-631/14)
   2014/C 380/21
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken and O. Rauscher)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christian Louboutin (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2014 in Case R 1591/2013-1 to the extent that opposition No B 1 9 22  890 is fully upheld and Community trade mark application No 008845539 is rejected;

               —

               in the alternative: annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Christian Louboutin

      Community trade mark concerned: Other marks, which consist of a nuance of the colour red, which is applied to the sole of a shoe, for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 8845539

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roland SE

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘my SHOES’, for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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


title: Case T-29/16: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v EUIPO (CAFFÈ NERO) ((EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark CAFFÈ NERO — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v EUIPO (CAFFÈ NERO)
   (Case T-29/16) (1)

   (((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark CAFFÈ NERO - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 462/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 (Case R 410/2015-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign CAFFÈ NERO as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Caffè Nero Group Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-172/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Expasa v OHIM — Juan Gallardo Blanco (figurative mark H )

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/29

         Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Expasa v OHIM — Juan Gallardo Blanco (figurative mark ‘H’)
   (Case T-172/06)
   (2006/C 190/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Expasa, Agricultura y Ganadería, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Valle Valiente)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Juan Gallardo Blanco
   Form of order sought

               —

               Grant the application;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark ‘H’ (letter written in bold type and with a curve in the horizontal stroke) (application for registration No 1 255 751, for goods in Class 31).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Juan Gallardo Blanco.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Spanish figurative mark No 198 648‘H’ (letter written in bold type, slightly inclined, with a curve in the horizontal stroke and crossed by a trail in the colours sky blue and deep red), for goods in Class 31 (‘livestock breeding of all kinds, except horses’).

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of nullity of the Community trade mark in its entirety.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 40(2) and 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-58/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/27
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar against                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                 of the European Communities                            ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                          ( Case T-57/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 166 374, together with interest
                            ( 97/C 142/56 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
                                                                              1992 until the date of payment in full;
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                       applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
the Commission of the European Communities was                                think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 61 220
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Communities on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar, of Wier                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
(Netherlands), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                     thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers, of The                           1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .                       ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
( a) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     applicant the sum of Fl 99 948 , together with interest            Case T-50/97 (')•
     thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
     1992 until the date of payment in full;
                                                                        (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
     in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
     applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
     think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 28 063
     ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
     thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                   Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers
     1992 until the date of the payment in full;                        against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
( b) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                       ( Case T-59/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/58 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities was
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal.                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers, of
                                                                        Onstwedde (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                        of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa against                    Guillaume .
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                 of the European Communities                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case T-58/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/57 )                            ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                              applicant the sum of Fl 114 970, together with interest
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full;
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                                in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
 Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa, of Leems                          think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 30 348
 ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                   ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers, of The                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                       thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                               1992 until the date of the payment in full;


title: Case C-464/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 17 October 2012 — ATP PensionService A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 17 October 2012 — ATP PensionService A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-464/12)
   2013/C 9/52
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ATP PensionService A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘special investment funds as defined by Member States’ includes pension funds such as those referred to in the main proceedings and having the following characteristics, where the Member State recognises the institutions presented in section 2 of the present order for reference as special investment funds:

                           (a)

                           the return to the employee (the pension customer) depends on the yield realised by the pension fund’s investments,

                           (b)

                           the employer is not required to make supplementary payments in order to secure a particular return for the pension customer,

                           (c)

                           the pension fund collectively invests the funds accumulated applying a risk-spreading principle,

                           (d)

                           the bulk of the payments into the pension fund is based on collective agreements between labour-market organisations representing the individual employees and employers, and not on the personal decision of the individual employee,

                           (e)

                           the individual employee may decide, on a personal basis, to make additional contributions to the pension fund,

                           (f)

                           self-employed traders, employers and directors may opt to pay pension contributions into the pension fund,

                           (g)

                           a predetermined portion of the pension savings collectively agreed for the employees is used to purchase a life annuity,

                           (h)

                           the pension customers bear the pension fund’s costs,

                           (i)

                           payments into the pension fund are deductible for the purposes of national income tax within certain quantitative limits,

                           (j)

                           payments into a personal pension plan, including a pension fund set up with a financial institution under which the contributions can be invested in a special investment fund, are deductible for the purposes of national income tax to the same extent as under point (i),

                           (k)

                           the counterpart to the entitlement to deduct contributions for tax purposes under point (i) is that disbursements are taxed, and

                           (l)

                           the funds accumulated are in principle to be paid out after the person concerned reaches pensionable age?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management’ includes a service such as that in issue in the main proceedings (see section 1.2 of the order for reference)?

               3.

               Is a service such as that in issue in the main proceedings concerning pension payments (see section 1.2 of the order for reference) to be regarded under the terms of Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive as a single service or as several separate services which are to be assessed independently?

               4.

               Is Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the VAT exemption laid down in that provision for transactions concerning payments or transfers covers a service such as that in issue in the main proceedings concerning pension payments (see section 1.2 of the order for reference)?

               5.

               If the fourth question is answered in the negative, is Article 13B(d)(3) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the VAT exemption laid down in that provision for transactions concerning deposit and current accounts covers a service such as that in issue in the main proceedings concerning pension payments (see section 1.2 of the order for reference)?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-634/11 P: Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ — Rejection of the appellant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/30

         Order of the General Court of 19 December 2013 — da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
   (Case T-634/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Appointment to post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ - Rejection of the appellant’s candidature - Appointment of another candidate - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 45/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and L. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission, seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case C-214/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Alexander Mölk v Valentina Mölk

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Alexander Mölk v Valentina Mölk
   (Case C-214/17)
   (2017/C 283/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alexander Mölk

      Defendant: Valentina Mölk

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 4(3) read in conjunction with Article 3 of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance debtor’s application, on the basis of a change in his income, for a reduction in the amount of maintenance awarded by a decision that has become final is governed by the law of the State of the creditor’s habitual residence even if the amount of maintenance previously payable was determined by the court, on application by the creditor pursuant to Article 4(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, according to the law of the State where the debtor has his habitual residence, which has not changed?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

               2.

               Is Article 4(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a creditor also ‘seises’ the competent authority of the State where the debtor has his habitual residence by entering an appearance, within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1) and contesting the substance of the matter in proceedings initiated by the debtor with the competent authority?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.


title: Case C-136/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG (Transport — Rail transport — Obligation of the railway infrastructure manager to provide railway undertakings in real time with all information concerning train movements, in particular information on delays to connecting trains)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Schienen-Control Kommission — Austria) — Westbahn Management GmbH v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
   (Case C-136/11) (1)

   (Transport - Rail transport - Obligation of the railway infrastructure manager to provide railway undertakings in real time with all information concerning train movements, in particular information on delays to connecting trains)
   2013/C 26/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Schienen-Control Kommission

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Westbahn Management GmbH

      Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Schienen-Control Kommission Wien — Interpretation of Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14) and of Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Obligation of the railway infrastructure manager to provide railway undertakings, in real time, with all information on train movements, including information on possible delays in connecting services

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Part II of Annex II to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the information on main connecting services must, in addition to scheduled departure times, also include delays to or cancellations of those connecting services, whichever railway undertaking operates them.

               2.

               Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Part II of Annex II to, Regulation No 1371/2007 and Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the infrastructure manager is required to make available to railway undertakings, in a non-discriminatory manner, real time data relating to trains operated by other railway undertakings, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Part II of Annex II to Regulation No 1371/2007.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case T-237/10: Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Vuitton Malletier v OHMI — Friis Group International (Representation of a lock device)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/44

         Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Vuitton Malletier v OHMI — Friis Group International (Representation of a lock device)
   (Case T-237/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Friis Group International ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 February 2010 in case R 1590/2008-1, in so far as it declared the invalidity of Community trade mark No 3693116 for the goods in classes 9, 14 and 18;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, should it become an intervening party in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A figurative mark representing a lock device for goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 3693116

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partially

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provision of this article is applicable to the contested Community trade mark with respect to the goods in classes 9, 14 and 18. In particular, the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly addressed the issue of the distinctiveness of the contested Community trade mark as if it were a mark consisting of the shape of the goods covered, and (ii) erroneously found lack of inherent distinctiveness.
   By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision violates Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the provision of this article does not apply in the present case.


title: Case T-8/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Gala-Salvador Dali (TG Torre Galatea) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea — Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Gala-Salvador Dali (TG Torre Galatea)
   (Case T-8/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark TG Torre Galatea - Earlier Community word mark TORRES 10 - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)
   (2009/C 44/76)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Fundación Gala-Salvador Dali (Figueras, Spain) (represented by: A. Seguera Roda and M. Teixdor Jufresa, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2006 (Case R-168/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Fundacion Gala-Salvador Dali.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 4.3.2007.


title: Action brought on 22 February 1996 by J. Langdon Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-22/96)

text:
 No C 158 / 14        EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
 Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                                of 21 March 1996
 of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission
 of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves             in Case T-161/95 : Lino Liao v. Council of the European
 Vieira and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for annulment,                                      Union (')
 first, of the decision adopted by the defendant on                  (Officials — Action for annulment of a staff report — Act
 24 November 1993 ( i ) withdrawing the household                   adversely affecting an official — Preparatory act — Action
 allowance and the allowance for a person treated as a                              for damages — Inadmissible)
 dependent child and ( ii ) providing for the recovery of the                                  ( 96/C 158/36 )
 allegedly undue payments made in respect of those
 allowances and , second, of the decision adopted by the
 defendant on 26 January 1994 laying down detailed                                 (Language of the case: French)
 measures for the repayment of the sums to be recovered
 pursuant to the aforesaid decision of 24 November 1993 —           In Case T-161 /95 : Lino Liao, an official of the Council of the
 the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:        European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
 R. Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and             Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Constantin Nickis, of the
J. Azizi, Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April 1996 , in          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
which it :                                                          Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano
                                                                    and Marie-Jeanne Vernier ) — application for annulment of
 1 , dismises the action;                                           the Decision of the Council of 19 May 1 995 , which was
                                                                    adopted for the purposes of drawing up the applicant's staff
                                                                    report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 , and
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     for compensation for the material and non-material loss
                                                                    allegedly suffered by him — the Court of First Instance
 (M OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,
                                                                    and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                    Registrar, made an order on 21 March 1996, the operative
                                                                    part of which is as follows :
                                                                    1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 4 March 1996                              2 . The patties are ordered to bear their own costs.
in Case T-3 92/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan v. Council of the
                      European Union (')                            (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                 (No need to give a decision)
                         ( 96/C 158/35 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Action brought on 22 February 1996 by J. Langdon Limited
In Case T-392/94 : Diarmuid Rossa Phelan, residing in Bella           against the Commission of the European Communities
Vista ( Ireland ), represented by Desmond O'Neill,
Barrister-at-Law, of the Bar of Ireland, v. Council of the                                  ( Case T-22/96 )
European Union ( Agents : Michael Bishop and Diego Canga                                      ( 96/C 158/37 )
Fano ) — application for the annulment of the Council
Decision of 1 6 September 1 994 not to admit the applicant to                     (Language of the case: English)
Open Competition Council/A/338 on the ground that the
application form was submitted out of time and for an order
that the Council pay him damages — the Court ( Fourth              An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh            Communities was brought before the Court of First
and J. D. Cooke, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order         Instance of the European Communities on 22 February
on 4 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                 1996 by J. Langdon Limited, represented by Patrick
follows :                                                          O'Brien, Solicitor, and Patrick McCann, Barrister, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at Faltz & Associés , 6 rue
                                                                   Heine .
1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
2 . Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                   — annul the Commission's Decision C ( 95 ) 2726 final of
(M OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       3 November 1995 adressed to Ireland;
                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak---  1 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 158/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           detectability' as provided for in Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 1697/79 and/or Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 .
The applicant explains that it is a company engaged in the
sourcing, distribution and marketing of manufactured                  5 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
apparel . Among other things , it is an importer of rainwear              assessment and/or interpretation in relation to the
manufactured from a combination of plastic and textile                    concept of 'obvious negligence ' as provided for in
materials . Between 19 May 1992 and 25 May 1994, the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 , as amended by
applicant imported a number of consignments of the said                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 3069/86 and Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 2913/92 .
rainwear, declaring them to fall within heading 3926 of the
combined nomenclature, which attracted a zero rate of
import duty under the Generalized System of Preferences               6 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
( GSP ). This tariff classification had been accepted on several          assessment in that it has applied two different legislative
occasions by the Irish Customs Service, both by the section               regimes in assessing the case transmitted to it by the Irish
responsible for GSP matters and by the customs import                     Customs Authorities . One of the legislative regimes is
officer dealing with the case, who had even inspected the                 out of date . The legislative regimes have differences in
goods to check that they had been classified correctly . The              points of substance and cannot be applied concurrently.
applicant underlines that the physical examination of the                 The Commission has failed to distinguish between the
goods and the acceptance of its customs declaration further               regimes .
supported it in its view that the correct tariff heading was
3926 . However, after further inspection, the Tariff
Classification Unit determined in November 1993 that the
goods were properly classified under heading 6210 . The
applicant points out that it has accepted that determination
and used it on all subsequent declarations in respect of the
same goods .
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 1996 by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                      Lunghi against the Commission of the European
The case was sent to the Commission by the Irish Customs                                        Communities
Authorities on 26 April 1995 . In due course, the                                            ( Case T-49/96 )
Commission consulted a group of experts within the
framework of the Committee provided for in Article 247 of                                      ( 96/C 158/38 )
the Customs Code . On 3 November 1995 , the Commission
took a decision finding that it was justified to take action for                     (Language of the case: French)
the post-clearance recovery of the import duties in question
and that the remission of these duties was not justified ( the
contested decision ).                                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1996 by
The action is based on the following pleas in law:                    Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, residing in Brussels,
                                                                      represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Jacques
1 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
      Regulations in that it was taken outside the six month          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
      time period provided for. This time period is mandatory         Rheinsheim .
      and provides for no exceptions or derogations .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
2.    The Decision was taken in breach of a fundamental
      principle of Community law: the principle of Audi               — declare that the compensation proposed by the
      alteram partem was infringed in that the applicant                  Commission is inadequate to satisfy the applicant's
      was not permitted to express its views effectively in               rights, and order the Commission to pay the damages
      proceedings which have involved unfavourable                        particularized by the defendant in her complaint of
      consequences for it .                                               11 September 1995 ;
3 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      Regulations and/or in breach of an essential procedural
      requirement in that the relevant Regulations require the        Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission to consult with a group of experts
      composed of all Member States . The applicant believes
      that several Member States were not represented in the          The applicant, an official retired on medical grounds,
      committee .                                                     contests the decision of the Commission limiting to
                                                                      Bfr 150 000 the compensation for the material and
                                                                      non-material damage suffered by her as a result of the
4 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error                disappearance of her personal belongings, which was caused
      of assessment in relation to the concept of 'reasonable         by a service-related fault .


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Removal from the register of Case C-337/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/67)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 27 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-337/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Case C-432/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Aboulkacem Chihabi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Aboulkacem Chihabi and Others
   (Case C-432/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main criminal proceedings

   Aboulkacem Chihabi, Mustapha Chihabi, Trans Atlantic International, Dani Danieli, Roland Prosper Julia Jozef Peeters, Jacobus Robert Maria Wick, Shlomo Ben-David, David Ben-David, Yehuda Cohen, Johannes Josephus Maria van Aert, Mirella Cohen, Roland Prosper Julia Jozef Peeters, Brigitte Frieda Guido Briels, Monty Lambert Pieters, Jemmy Jozef Juliette Pieters, Peter Edouard Martha Kilian, Yehuda Cohen, Herman Jozef Albert Van Landeghem, Van Landeghem BVBA, Roland Prosper Julia Jozef Peeters, Herman Jozef Albert Van Landeghem, Van Landeghem BVBA, Brigitte Frieda Guido Briels, Monty Lambert Pieters, Jemmy Jozef Juliette Pieters, Mediterranean Shipping Company Belgium NV, Mirella Cohen, Roland Prosper Julia Jozef Peeters, Brigitte Frieda Guido Briels, Monty Lambert Pieters, Jemmy Jozef Juliette Pieters, Peter Edouard Martha Kilian, Yehuda Cohen, Yves Claude Robert Van De Merckt, CMA CGM Belgium NV, CMA CGM Logistics NV, Herman Jozef Albert Van Landeghem, Van Landeghem BVBA, Rudi François Albertine Avaert, Ronny Bruno Van Wesenbeeck, Wally Louis Alice De Vooght, Christian Gustave Alain Bekkers, Avraham Dror, Yehuda Cohen, Yehuda Cohen, Frank Jozef Hilda Decock, Rubi Danieli, Dani Danieli, Jean Marie Dom, Roland Prosper Julia Jozef Peeters, Peter Edouard Martha Kilian, Simeon Beniurishvili, Ludo Maria Jan Gijsen, Van Landeghem BVBA, Anex BVBA, Pasha Tech Ltd, Louis Simon Catherina De Vos, Aboulkacem Chihabi, Herman Jozef Albert Van Landeghem, Deba BVBA, Universal Shipping NV, DFDS Transport NV, ACR Logistics Belgium NV, Forwarding & Shipping Group NV, Mister-Trans BVBA, Firma De Vos NV, Yehuda Cohen, Avraham Dror, Aboulkacem Chihabi, Peter Edouard Martha Kilian, Louis Simon Catherina De Vos, Roland Prosper Julia Jozef Peeters, Jemmy Jozef Juliette Pieters, Yves Claude Robert Van De Merckt, Dani Danieli, Rubi Danieli, Dov Horny, Albert Tizov, Gocha Tizov, Herman Jozef Albert Van Landeghem, Christiaan Marcel Hélène Hendrickx

      Intervening party: Geert Vandendriessche

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 5, 38 to 41 and 43, second indent of Article 177 and Articles 202(1) and (3) and 221(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and of Article 199(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Communication to the debtor — Creation of a customs debt following the unlawful introduction of goods

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen, made by decision of 31 May 2007, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-63/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s-Hertogenbosch, (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s-Hertogenbosch, (Netherlands) lodged on 12 February 2015 — Mehrdad Ghezelbash v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-63/15)
   (2015/C 138/49)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in ’s-Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mehrdad Ghezelbash

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the scope of Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 (1), whether or not in conjunction with recital 19 in the preamble to that regulation?
               Does an asylum seeker — in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the foreign national was confronted with the request for assumption of responsibility to deal with the asylum application only after that request had been agreed to, and that foreign national submits evidence, subsequent to the agreement to that request, which could lead to the conclusion that it is the requesting Member State, and not the requested Member State, which is responsible for examining the application for asylum, and the requesting Member State subsequently does not examine those documents or forward them to the requested Member State — have the right, pursuant to that article, to an (effective) legal remedy against the application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible laid down in Chapter III of Regulation No 604/2013?

               2.

               If under Regulation No 604/2013, or under the operation of Regulation No 343/2003 (2), the foreign national is in principle not entitled to invoke the incorrect application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible when the requested Member State has agreed to a request to take charge, is the defendant correct in its contention that an exception to that assumption may be contemplated only in the case of family situations as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation No 604/2013, or is it conceivable that there may also be other special facts and circumstances on the basis of which the foreign national may be entitled to invoke the incorrect application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is that, in addition to family situations, there are also other circumstances which could lead to the foreign national being entitled to invoke the incorrect application of the criteria for determining the Member State responsible, can the facts and circumstances described in paragraph 12 of the present decision constitute such special facts and circumstances?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).


title: Case C-40/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/27

         Action brought on 25 January 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-40/10)
   2010/C 51/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant(s): European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (1) apart from Articles 1 and 3 thereof, while maintaining its effects until the adoption by the Council of a new regulation correctly applying Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI thereto;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission seeks the annulment in part of Regulation (EU) No 1296/2009 in so far as the Council, for reasons of political expediency, has replaced in that regulation the amounts of the remuneration and pensions proposed by the Commission on the basis of a rate of adjustment of 3,7 % — which is the result of the mechanical application of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Annex XI thereto — by amounts corresponding to a coefficient of 1,85 %, which is incorrect. In the view of the Council, that replacement is justified by the economic and financial crisis and by the economic and social policy of the Union.
   As regards Articles 2 and 4 to 17 of the contested regulation, the Commission puts forward a single plea, alleging breach of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations. The Council has circumscribed powers in this area, more so under the current version of the Staff Regulations — in which the details of the method of adjusting remuneration and pensions are set out in Annex XI thereto — than in the past, when the Court, on the basis of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations alone, concluded that the Council’s discretion was limited. The Commission also relies on a breach of legitimate expectations and of the principle of ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’.
   Article 18 of the contested regulation, for its part, breaches Articles 3 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations in creating the possibility of making an intermediate adjustment of remuneration, beyond the deadline laid down in Article 65 of the Staff Regulations and outside the framework of the conditions laid down in Articles 4 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 348, p. 10.


title: Case T-507/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 April 2013 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
   (Case T-507/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial name Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 156/76
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: initially S. Abrar, then P. Lange, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, V. von Bomhard, T. Heitmann, M. Petersenn, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2011 (Case R 262/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 362, 10.12.2011.


title: Case C-46/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/79/EC — Working conditions — Organisation of working time — Mobile workers in civil aviation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/24

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-46/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/79/EC - Working conditions - Organisation of working time - Mobile workers in civil aviation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 131/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (OJ 2000 L 302, p. 57)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.


title: Case T-189/11: Action brought on 24 March 2011 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/30

         Action brought on 24 March 2011 — Yordanov v OHIM — Distribuidora comercial del frio (DISCO DESIGNER)
   (Case T-189/11)
   2011/C 152/53
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Yordanov (Rousse, Bulgaria) (represented by: T. Walter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 January 2011 in Case R 803/2010-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘DISCO DESIGNER’ for goods in Classes 11, 19 and 20.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Distribuidora comercial del frio, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘DISCO’ for goods in Class 11.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: To uphold the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To dismiss the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in question and the Board of Appeal incorrectly held that the goods at issue were identical.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-212/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Measures having equivalent effect — Prior authorisation procedure for personal imports of medicinal products — Medicinal products for human consumption — Homeopathic medicinal products)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-212/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Measures having equivalent effect - Prior authorisation procedure for personal imports of medicinal products - Medicinal products for human consumption - Homeopathic medicinal products)
   (2005/C 182/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-212/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, C. Bergeot-Nunes and R. Loosli-Surrans) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 15 May 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying:

                           —

                           a prior authorisation procedure to personal imports, not effected by personal transport, of medicinal products lawfully prescribed in France and authorised under Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993, both in France and in the Member State where they are purchased;

                           —

                           a prior authorisation procedure to personal imports, not effected by personal transport, of homeopathic medicinal products lawfully prescribed in France and registered in a Member State pursuant to Council Directive 92/73/EEC of 22 September 1992 widening the scope of Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic medicinal products; and

                           —

                           a disproportionate prior authorisation procedure to personal imports, not effected by personal transport, of medicinal products lawfully prescribed in France and not authorised in that Member State but only in the Member State where they are purchased,

                     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.