25 . 11 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 315/ 13
Communities in Case T-5 85/93 between Stichting                     would be in stark contrast to the position under the national
Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ) and 18              laws of the Member States and general developments in
others and the Commission of the European Communities,              international law . It would also be inconsistent with the
supported by the Kingdom of Spain, was brought before the           stated policy of the Community institutions and the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     governments of the Member States .
16 October 1995 by Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and 18 others, represented by
Philippe Sands and Mark Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of
England and Wales , instructed by Leigh, Day & Co .,
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Removal from the register of Case C-2 14/90 ( )
Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 , rue des Glacis .                                             ( 95/C 315/26 )
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    By order of 27 September 1995 the President of the Third
1.   Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of          Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
     9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93 .                               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                    C-214/90 ( reference for a preliminary ruling): Agricola
2 . Declare that the application brought by the Appellants          d'Arsego SAS v. Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel
     in Case T-585/93 is admissible .
                                                                    Mercato Agricolo ( AIMA ).
3 . Order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs of
     this appeal .                                                  (•) OJ No C 208 , 21 . 8 . 1990 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance failed to
properly interpret and apply Article 173 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-438/93 ( )
and applied the wrong criteria in assessing whether the
appellants were individually concerned by the                                                   ( 95/C 315/27 )
Commission's acts under Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                    By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Court of
The Court of First Instance applied case-law of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice which had been developed solely in the context of           from the register of Case C-438/93 ( reference for a
economic issues and rights to the effect that an individual         preliminary ruling): Adriatica Costruzioni Ancona Sri v.
must belong to a 'closed class' before he can be said to be         Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici and Comune di Ancona .
individually concerned by a Community act. The Court of
First Instance erred in applying that case-law without taking       ( 1 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
into account properly or at all the specific nature and
character of the environmental, rather than economic ,
interests which form the basis of the appellants' case .
The practical effect of applying the traditional approach to               Removal from the register of Case C-256/94 ( l )
individual concern in environmental cases is that private
parties will never be able to challenge Community measures                                       ( 95/C 315/28 )
which affect their environmental interests . There would in
effect be a total vacuum of enforcement .                           By order of the President of 24 August 1995 the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 Moreover, to hold that private parties had no rights to seek       from the register of Case C-256/94 : Commission of the
 judicial review under Article 173 of the EC Treaty of              European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
 Community acts which violated Community environmental
 obligations or which caused other harm to the environment           (') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA v European Commission Case C-460/09 P) (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Finding of irregularities in the refunds for beef and veal exported to Jordan — OLAF investigation — Communication of OLAF’s findings to the national authorities — Provision of guarantees — Claim for the reimbursement of the related costs — Causal link — Cross-appeal — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA v European Commission
   Case C-460/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Finding of irregularities in the refunds for beef and veal exported to Jordan - OLAF investigation - Communication of OLAF’s findings to the national authorities - Provision of guarantees - Claim for the reimbursement of the related costs - Causal link - Cross-appeal - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run)
   2013/C 114/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni, Cremonini SpA (represented by: F. Sciaudone and C. D’Andria, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and P. Rossi, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of 4 September 2009 in Case T-174/06 Inalca and Cremonini v Commission by which the by which the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Sixth Chamber) dismissed an action seeking to establish non-contractual liability by which compensation was sought for the damage purportedly suffered by the appellants following the communication to the Italian authorities of findings which cast doubts upon the appellants in the context of an investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) with a view to determining the lawfulness of a number of export refunds relating to beef and veal exported to Jordan.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

               2.

               Orders Inalca SpA — Industria Alimentari Carni and Cremonini SpA to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-108/07 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/4

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2007 by Ferrero Deutschland GmbH against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 15 December 2006 in Case T-310/04 Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Cornu SA Fontain
   (Case C-108/07 P)
   (2007/C 129/05)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Cornu SA Fontain
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2006 in Case T-314/04 Ferrero Deutschland v OHIM — Cornu SA Fontain;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward a single plea in law in support of its appeal, alleging an infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance and, more specifically, that it incorrectly interpreted Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1). In that connection, the applicant puts forward the following five arguments.
   First, the Court failed to take account of the fact that the salted and sweet goods concerned are produced and marketed to a relevant extent by the same undertakings, including the intervener itself. Second, the Court committed an error of law by holding that the goods concerned are only slightly similar, whereas, in this case, it should have found at least an average degree of similarity. Third, the Court committed an error of law by attributing only ‘a certain degree of similarity ’to the marks ‘Ferrero ’and ‘Ferro’, whereas the arguments that the Court itself put forward in its judgment should have led to the conclusion that those marks have an average degree or even high degree of similarity. Fourth, the Court failed to take sufficient account of the documents submitted by the appellant in order to highlight the highly distinctive character of the mark ‘Ferrero’. Finally, in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion, the Court committed an error of law by failing to take account of the many factors mentioned in the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Case T-385/11: Action brought on 21 July 2011 — BP Products North America v Council

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/32

         Action brought on 21 July 2011 — BP Products North America v Council
   (Case T-385/11)
   2011/C 282/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BP Products North America, Inc. (Naperville, United States) (represented by: H.-J. Prieß and B. Sachs, lawyers and C. Farrar, solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 443/2011 (1) of 5 May 2011, insofar as it affects the applicant;

               —

               Annul Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2011 (2) of 5 May 2011, insofar as it affects the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the basic anti-dumping and countervailing duty regulations by extending Council Regulations (EC) No 598/2009 and No 599/2009 on biodiesel imports originating in the United States of America (3) to biodiesel products not originally covered by the anti-dumping and countervailing duty regulations, rather than by carrying out a ‘de novo’ investigation, even though the blends now subject to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2011 were specifically excluded from the scope of Council Regulations (EC) No 598/2009 and No 599/2009.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appraisal as regards the assessment of facts, in particular with regard to the fact that the lower blended biodiesel products (and not subject to any duty) cannot be re-converted to higher blends (that are subject to the duty), so that circumvention is actually not possible, and as regards an alleged circumvention by the applicant by manifestly erring the economic justifications for the exports by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of an essential procedural requirement by failing to provide adequate reasoning in Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2011 for the extension of the definitive duties to biodiesel products of blends of 20 % and lower.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the basic European Union law principles of non-discrimination and good administration, by not according to the applicant the duty rate applicable to ‘cooperating companies’ despite the fact that the applicant did fully cooperate.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 443/2011 of 5 May 2011 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America to imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, and extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 to imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Singapore (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2011 of 5 May 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America to imports of biodiesel consigned from Canada, whether declared as originating in Canada or not, and extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 to imports of biodiesel in a blend containing by weight 20 % or less of biodiesel originating in the United States of America, and terminating the investigation in respect of imports consigned from Singapore (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 12)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 598/2009 of 7 July 2009 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America (OJ 2009 L 179, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 of 7 July 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America (OJ 2009 L 179, p. 26)


title: Case T-71/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 April 2011 — Xeda International v Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 April 2011 — Xeda International v Commission
   (Case T-71/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 152/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Parpala, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application, essentially, for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79) pending judgment in the main proceedings.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-425/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2006 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 October 2006 — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation
   (Case C-425/06)
   (2006/C 326/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   La Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

      Defendant: Part Service Srl, in liquidation
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the concept of abuse of rights, defined in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-255/02 as transactions, the essential aim of which is to obtain a tax advantage, correspond to the definition transactions carried out for no commercial reasons other than a tax advantage, or is it broader or more restrictive than that definition?

               2.

               For the purposes of VAT, may there be considered to be an abuse of rights (or of legal forms), with the consequent loss of Community own revenue accruing from value added tax, where contracts for leasing arrangements (locazione finanziaria), financing, insurance and intermediation contracts are concluded separately with the effect that only the consideration paid in respect of the grant of the right to use the goods is subject to VAT, whereas a single contract of leasing in accordance with the practice and interpretation of national case-law would include the financing and would therefore make the whole of the consideration subject to VAT?


title: Case T-181/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/27

         Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)
   (Case T-181/16)
   (2016/C 222/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER PRECISE’ — Application for registration No 11 567 203

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2911/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-341/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender — Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/46

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Mizuno KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-341/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community trade mark - Figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal)
   2013/C 225/79
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Mizuno KK (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 8 May 2012 in Case T-101/11 Mizuno v OHIM — GOLFINO (G), whereby the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 821/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Mizuno KK and Golfino AG — Figurative sign comprising the letter ‘G’ and the two symbols of gender — Likelihood of confusion with a figurative mark comprising the letter ‘G’ and the symbol ‘+’ — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mizuno KK shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-360/00: Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 45/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              provides compensation which offsets and stabilises the income
                                                                         of fishery producers can only mean that, whenever a producer
                                                                         switches from one producers’ organisation to another, the
—     annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Article 2(2) of, and            bases for calculation laid down in Article 18(4) of the basic
      the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1926/2000               regulation must be amended to the same extent.
      of 11 September 2000 and Article 2(2) of, and the annex
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1103/2000 of 25 May
      2000 providing for the granting of compensation to
      producers’ organisations in respect of tuna delivered to           The applicant further alleges misuse of powers by the Com-
      the processing industry from 1 October to 31 December              mission.
      1999 (OJ 2000 L 125, p. 18 and OJ 2000 L 230, p. 10);
—     in the alternative, annul such articles and annexes on the         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3318/94 of 22 December 1994
      ground that the Commission misused its powers when                     amending Regulation (EEC) No 3759/92 on the common organ-
      interpreting Article 18 of the basic regulation;                       ization of the market in fishery products and aquaculture (OJ
                                                                             1994 L 350, p. 15).
—     order the Commission to provide for a new regulation
      correcting the tonnage distributed between OPAGAC and
      OPTUC in view of changes in their respective tonnage;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 25 November 2000 by Dart Industries
The applicant organisation explains, first and foremost, that            Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
its composition changed on 1 July 1998 when it was joined                                             Market
by two undertakings which had previously been part of
APTUC, another tuna producers’ organisation. Since then, the
registered tonnage and catches of the applicant organisation                                     (Case T-360/00)
has increased, thus changing the basis for calculating the
compensation laid down in the basic regulation (1).
                                                                                (2001/C 45/47)
Following publication of Regulation No 1103/2000, cited
above, the applicant became aware of the fact that compen-
sation had been distributed among producers’ organisations                                  (Language of the case: English)
without account being taken of changes to tonnages by
associations, so it then made the appropriate approaches to
the Spanish and Union authorities.
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 25 November 2000 by Dart
Without resolving the matter of allocations for the third                Industries Inc., represented by Kay-Uwe Jonas of Oppenhoff &
quarter of 1999, the Commission adopted Regulation                       Rädler (Cologne) Germany.
No 1926/2000, cited above, in which the allocations are, in
the view of the applicant, also erroneous.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
To date, the Commission has still not replied to the request of
the Secretarı́a General de Pesca Marı́tima for the correct               —     annul the defendant’s decision R 278/2000-1 of 22 Sep-
interpretation of the applicable legislation, so that the applicant            tember 2000;
is obliged to seek the interpretation of the basic regulations
implied in the articles of and annexes to the regulations
providing for compensation in respect of the period running              —     order that the Application No. 716597 ‘UltraPlus’ be
from 1 October to 31 December 1999.                                            referred back to OHIM to be published in accordance
                                                                               with CTMR Article 40 in respect of all the goods claimed
                                                                               therein;
In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
by the contested provisions of Article 18(4) of Regulation
No 3579/92, cited above. In its view, the fact that the measure          —     order OHIM to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.2.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 45/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Trade Mark concerned:         Word mark ‘UltraPlus’ — Appli-              The applicant in this case, the same as in Case T-91/00 (1),
                              cation No. 716597                           challenges the refusal of the Settlements Office of the Joint
                                                                          Sickness Insurance Scheme in Luxembourg to reimburse sums
                                                                          incurred by him in the first half of the year 2000, on care
Product or Service:           Class 21 (plastic ovenware for              services needed by one of his sons, as assistance by medical
                              use in microwave, convection and            auxiliaries within the meaning of Paragraph 1 of Title X of
                              conventional ovens)                         Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance. The Settlements
                                                                          Office authorised those services only as nursing attendance
Contested        Decision     Refusal of registration by the              within the meaning of Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of those rules.
before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Pleas in law relied on:       Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b)           raised in Case T-91/00.
                              and (c) of Regulation 40/94.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 24.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Mário Campo-
Action brought on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo Kind                         largo against the Commission of the European Communi-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                                                     ties
                        (Case T-362/00)                                                           (Case T-372/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/49)
                         (2001/C 45/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Mário
European Communities on 27 November 2000 by Adolfo                        Campolargo, residing at Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Kind, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar,             Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 15 February
                                                                                2000 annulling the appointment of the applicant as head
                                                                                of the former unit DG XIII/G/2 and his promotion to
—     annul the measures challenged for unlawful and                            grade A3, and the appointing authority’s implicit decision
      erroneous application of the system of repayment                          of 12 September 2000 giving a negative response to the
      adopted;                                                                  complaint submitted by the applicant;
—     order the Commission to carry out settlement, as in the             —     order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to
      past, on the basis of invoices in respect of expenses for                 Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      paramedical assistance produced by the insured;                           First Instance and the expenses necessarily incurred for
                                                                                the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel
                                                                                and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of law-
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    yers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of those Rules.


title: Case T-109/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Škugor and Others v European Union

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/38

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Škugor and Others v European Union
   (Case T-109/14)
   2014/C 142/50
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicants: Davor Škugor (Sisak, Croatia), Ivan Gerometa (Vrsar, Croatia), Kristina Samardžić (Split, Croatia), Sandra Cindrić (Karlovac, Croatia), Sunčica Gložinić (Varaždin, Croatia), Tomislav Polić (Kaštel Novi, Croatia), Vlatka Pižeta (Varaždin) (represented by: Mato Krmek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare, by a judgment, that the European Union must compensate the applicants for the injury they suffered as a result of the European Commission’s partial failure to fulfil its obligation to monitor the implementation of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, imposed on that institution under Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), as regards the introduction of the bailiff service in the legal order of the Republic of Croatia;

               —

               suspend deliberations regarding the amount of the claim until the judgment in the present case has become final;

               —

               reserve the decision as to costs for the later judgment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), which forms an integral part of the Treaty of Accession of the Croatian Republic to the European Union concluded between the Croatian Republic and the Member States of the European Union [Narodne novine — Međunarodni ugovori no 2/12 (Official Journal — International Treaties)], in failing to prevent the derogation from the legislation establishing and governing the profession of bailiff, which the Republic of Croatia had adopted during the negotiations on accession to the European Union. Article 36 of the Act of Accession tasks the Commission with monitoring the commitments entered into by the Republic of Croatia during the negotiations on accession to the European Union and, accordingly, the legal obligations assumed by the Republic of Croatia to establish a bailiff service and to ensure the full implementation of that service in the Croatian legal order by 1 January 2012 at the latest. However, the European Commission does not have the power to allow any unilateral amendment of the obligations thus entered into by the Republic of Croatia.

               2.

               Second plea in law: by the abovementioned infringement, the European Commission directly injured the applicants, who had been appointed as bailiffs and who had legitimate expectations that they would take up their duties on 1 January 2012.

               3.

               Third plea in law: in failing to fulfil its obligations, the Commission clearly and seriously exceeded the limits of its discretion and, in frustrating the limited expectations of the applicants (appointed bailiffs), caused them significant material and non-material damage which the European Union must make good in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU.


title: Case T-269/12: Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/30

         Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Makro autoservicio mayorista v Commission
   (Case T-269/12)
   2012/C 243/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Makro autoservicio mayorista, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision COM (2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 2/08), notified to the applicant by a letter dated 19 April 2012; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that import duties were entered in the account contrary to Article 220(2)(b) CCC (1), since the defendant erroneously considered that anti-dumping regulations adopted against imports from third countries are automatically applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union, and as a result, the defendant erroneously failed to inform traders that the AD Regulation concerned was also applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Alternatively, the Turkish authorities committed an error when they confirmed that the anti-dumping duties imposed on goods from third countries were not applicable to goods in free circulation in the EU-Turkey customs union. Further, the applicant submits that the Spanish customs authorities also committed an error since they assumed that goods accompanied by an A.TR certificate could not be subject to any additional duties or trade protection measures, and failed to inform economic operator that their imports from Turkey could be subject to trade measures, even if such goods were in free circulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the error committed by the competent customs authorities could not have been reasonably detected by the person liable for payment, having acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that it finds itself in a special situation of Article 239 CCC, and that no deception or obvious negligence can be attributed to the applicant pursuant to Article 239 CCC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1)


title: Case T-274/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 October 2006 — Ritek and Prodisc Technology v Council (Dumping — Recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan — Determination of the dumping margin — Choice of the asymmetrical method of calculation — Pattern of export prices which differ according to the purchasers, regions or periods — Zeroing technique)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 October 2006 — Ritek and Prodisc Technology v Council
   (Case T-274/02) (1)

   (Dumping - Recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan - Determination of the dumping margin - Choice of the asymmetrical method of calculation - Pattern of export prices which differ according to the purchasers, regions or periods - ‘Zeroing’ technique)
   (2006/C 310/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ritek Corp (Hsin-Chu, Taiwan) and Prodisc Technology Inc. (Taipei Hsien, Taiwan) (represented by: first, K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akritidis and D. De Notaris, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Adamantopoulos and J. Branton, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by T. Scharf and S. Meany, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact discs originating in Taiwan (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 2).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Council;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2002 in Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
10.8.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/11
1.    The first and fourth grounds of appeal are dismissed as                1.    The fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal are dismissed in
      manifestly unfounded.                                                        their entirety as manifestly unfounded.
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                    2.    Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                   (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 5 June 2002
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
in Case C-213/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite
Cemento SpA v Commission of the European Communi-                            in Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA v Commission of
                                 ties (1)                                                      the European Communities (1)
(Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the                       (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part                           EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                       manifestly unfounded)                                  manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                           (2002/C 191/18)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/19)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-219/00 P: Italcementi — Fabbriche Riunite Cemento
SpA, established in Bergamo, Italy, represented by A. Predieri,              In Case C-217/00 P: Buzzi Unicem SpA, formerly Unicem
M. Siragusa, M. Beretta, C. Lanciani and F. M. Moretti, lawyers              SpA, established in Casale Monferrato (Italy), represented by
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                 C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers — appeal against the judgment
of the European Communities, Fourth Chamber, Extended                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Composition, of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95,                       Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of 15 March 2000
T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95                     in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/
to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/                    95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to
95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/95 to T-104/95 Cimente-                     T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/
ries CBR and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking                  95 to T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                      [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
proceedings being Commission of the European Communities                     the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
(Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (Fifth               European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, Presidents of the Chamber,                    Ferro) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                   Presidents of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                  Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 June 2002, the                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order
operative part of which is as follows:                                       on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.    The following are dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and/or          P.C. Gaito, lawyers — appeal against the judgment of the
      manifestly unfounded:                                                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Fourth
                                                                             Chamber, Extended Composition, of 15 March 2000 in Joined
      —     second ground of appeal, second to fifth parts;                  Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to
                                                                             T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95,
      —     third ground of appeal;                                          T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95 and T-103/95 to
                                                                             T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR v Commission [2000] ECR II-491,
      —     sixth ground of appeal;                                          seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
      —     eighth ground of appeal;                                         (Agents: R. Lyal, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court,
                                                                             composed of P. Jann, Presidents of the Chamber,
      —     ninth ground of appeal, first part;                              D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
                                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 June 2002, the
      —     eleventh ground of appeal, first, second, fourth and fifth
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
            parts;
      —     sixteenth ground of appeal;                                      1.    The fourth and fifth parts of the sixth ground of appeal are
                                                                                dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
      —     seventeenth ground of appeal;
                                                                             2.    Costs are reserved.
      —     nineteenth ground of appeal;
      —     twentieth ground of appeal, and                                  (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      —     twentieth and twenty-first grounds of appeal.
2.    Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                 of 30 May 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   in Case C-358/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Buchhändler-
                            of 5 June 2002                                   Vereinigung GmbH v Saur Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, Die
                                                                                Deutsche Bibliothek (1)
in Case C-219/00 P: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno
    SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)                         (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Public service
                                                                             contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service con-
(Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the                                                      cession)
EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                       manifestly unfounded)                                                            (2002/C 191/21)
                           (2002/C 191/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-358/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-219/00 P: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno                        by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a prelimi-
SpA, established in Rome, represented by G.M. Roberti and                    nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court


title: Case C-460/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 —Valériane SNC v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 —Valériane SNC v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques
   (Case C-460/17)
   (2017/C 347/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valériane SNC

      Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

      Question referred

   Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

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


               7.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/26

         Action brought on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Liechtenstein
   (Case E-9/10)
   2010/C 271/06
   An action against Lichtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA;

               2.

               The Principality of Liechtenstein bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Liechtenstein to comply with a reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the failure to adopt, or to notify the Authority of the measures necessary to fully implement the EEA Act corresponding to European Union Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications as amended.

               —

               The outstanding Liechtenstein measures concern the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in other EEA States regarding the crafts sector.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from the Liechtenstein government indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly.

               —

               The Liechtenstein government has not disputed the delay in fully implementing the Act.


title: Case C-263/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-263/11)
   2011/C 226/31
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ainārs Rēdlihs

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a natural person who has acquired goods (a forest) for his own needs and who makes a supply of goods to alleviate the consequences generated by force majeure (for example, a storm) a taxable person for the purposes of VAT, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, (2) who is required to pay VAT? In other words, does such a supply of goods constitute an economic activity within the meaning of those rules of European Union law?

               2.

               Does a regulation, under which a fine can be imposed on a person who has not registered on the register of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT, in an amount equivalent to the tax that would normally be due for the value of the goods supplied, even though that person would not have to pay the tax if he had registered on the register, comply with the principle of proportionality?

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

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


C 118/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-160/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/46)                                                    (2001/C 118/49)
By order of 27 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-160/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                         European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-46/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-128/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/47)                                                    (2001/C 118/50)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-46/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-128/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Ireland.                                    ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)]: Johann Kappel
                                                                   v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-85/00 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-464/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/48)                                                    (2001/C 118/51)
By order of 28 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 3 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-85/00: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-464/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case T-117/12: Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ANKO v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/18

         Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-117/12)
   2012/C 138/35
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO Anonimos Etairia Antiprosopion, Emporiou kai Viomikhanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the suspension of payment which the European Commission has imposed in respect of the sums which it owes the applicant for the PERFORM and OASIS projects constitutes a breach of its contractual obligations;

               —

               require the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 637 117,17 in respect of the PERFORM project, together with the interest provided for by paragraph 5 of Clause II.5 of Annex II to the principal contract from service of the present action;

               —

               require the Commission to acknowledge that the applicant does not have to return the sum of EUR 56 390,00 which it paid to the applicant in respect of the OASIS project;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns liability of the Commission under (a) contract No 215952 for the carrying out of the project ‘A soPhisticatEd multi-paRametric system FOR the continuous effective assessment and Monitoring of motor status in Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases (PERFORM)’ and (b) contract No 215754 for the carrying out of the project ‘Open architecture for Accessible Services Integration and Standardisation (OASIS)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU.
   Specifically, the applicant submits that, although it duly performed its contractual obligations in full, the Commission suspended the payments to the applicant without being entitled to do so and in breach of the foregoing contracts and of the principle of good faith. For that reason, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission must be obliged to pay to it the sum of EUR 637 117,17 in respect of the PERFORM project, together with the interest provided for by paragraph 5 of Clause II.5 of Annex II to the principal contract, and second, that it must be acknowledged that the applicant does not have to return the sum of EUR 56 390,00 which it received in respect of the OASIS project.


title: Case C-548/16: Order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Belgian State v Biologie Dr Antoine SPRL

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Belgian State v Biologie Dr Antoine SPRL
   (Case C-548/16) (1)

   (2017/C 300/34)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case T-556/17: Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Staropilsen v EUIPO — Pivovary Staropramen (STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/43

         Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Staropilsen v EUIPO — Pivovary Staropramen (STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN)
   (Case T-556/17)
   (2017/C 347/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Staropilsen s. r. o. (Pilsen, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Kodrasová, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pivovary Staropramen s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN’ — EU trade mark No 9 034 893

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2017 in Case R 236/2017-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               cancel the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-435/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 September 2012 — ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Others

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 September 2012 — ACI Adam BV and Others v Stichting de Thuiskopie and Others
   (Case C-435/12)
   2012/C 399/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ACI Adam BV, Alpha International BV, AVC Nederland BV, BAS Computers & Componenten BV, Despec BV, Dexxon Data Media and Storage BV, Fuji Magnetics Nederland, Imation Europe BV, Maxell Benelux BV, Philips Consumer Electronics BV, Sony Benelux BV, Verbatim GmbH

      Defendants: Stichting de Thuiskopie, Stichting Onderhandelingen Thuiskopie Vergoeding

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 5(2)(b) — whether or not in conjunction with Article 5(5) — of the Copyright Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the limitation on copyright referred to therein applies to reproductions which satisfy the requirements set out in that provision, regardless of whether the copies of the works from which the reproductions were taken became available to the natural person concerned lawfully — that is to say: without infringing the copyright of the rightholders — or does that limitation apply only to reproductions taken from works which have become available to the person concerned without infringement of copyright?

               2.

                           (a)

                           If the answer to question 1 is that expressed at the end of the question, can the application of the ‘three-stage test’ referred to in Article 5(5) of the Copyright Directive form the basis for the expansion of the scope of the exception of Article 5(2), or can its application only lead to the reduction of the scope of the limitation?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to question 1 is that expressed at the end of the question, is a rule of national law which provides that in the case of reproductions made by a natural person for private use and without any direct or indirect commercial objective, fair compensation is payable, regardless of whether the manufacture of those reproductions is authorised under Article 5(2) of the Copyright Directive — and without there being any infringement by that rule of the prohibition right of the rightholder and his entitlement to damages — contrary to Article 5 of the Copyright Directive, or to any other rule of European law?
                           In the light of the ‘three-stage test’ of Article 5(5) of the Copyright Directive, is it important when answering that question that technical resources to combat the making of unauthorised private copies are not (yet) available?

               3.

               Is the Enforcement Directive (2) applicable to proceedings such as these where — after a Member State, on the basis of Article 5(2)b of the Copyright Directive, has imposed the obligation to pay the fair compensation referred to in that provision on producers and importers of media which are suitable and intended for the reproduction of works, and has determined that that fair compensation should be paid to an organisation designated by that Member State which has been charged with collecting and distributing the fair compensation — those liable to pay the compensation bring a claim for a declaration by the courts in respect of certain contested circumstances which have a bearing on the determination of the fair compensation, against the organisation concerned, which defends the action?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

      (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).


title: Case C-45/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail, Brussels, Belgium lodged on 30 January 2012 — O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés v Radia Hadj Ahmed

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail, Brussels, Belgium lodged on 30 January 2012 — O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés v Radia Hadj Ahmed
   (Case C-45/12)
   2012/C 109/11
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail, Brussels

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: O.N.A.F.T.S. — Office national d’allocations familiales pour travailleurs salariés

      Defendant: Radia Hadj Ahmed

      Questions referred

               1.

               in circumstances where a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) obtained, less than five years earlier, a permit to reside in a Member State (in this case, Belgium), in order to join, not in the context of a marriage or registered partnership, a citizen of another Member State (in this case, a person of French nationality), by whom she has a child (of French nationality), is that national one of the persons covered by Regulation No 1408/71 (1) as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant, as awardee, of guaranteed family benefits for another child who is a national of a non-member country (in this case, of Algerian nationality) even though her cohabitation with the father of the child of French nationality has in the meantime come to an end?

               2.

               if the first question is answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, and by reason of the presence in her household of the child of French nationality, is that national of a non-member country or her child, who is a national of a non-member country, covered by Regulation No 1408/71 as a family member of a worker who is a national of a Member State, for the grant of guaranteed family benefits for the child of Algerian nationality?

               3.

               if the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, does that national of a non-member country enjoy, under Articles 13(2) and 14 of Directive 2004/38 (2), read in conjunction with Article 12 EC (now Article 18 TFEU), a right to the same legal treatment as nationals for so long as that right of residence has not been withdrawn, with the result that the Belgian State is precluded from imposing on her a length-of-residence requirement for the grant of guaranteed family benefits when that condition is not imposed on national beneficiaries?

               4.

               if the foregoing questions are answered in the negative, in the circumstances described in the first question, does that national of a non-member country, the mother of an EU citizen, benefit, under Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union from the principle of equal treatment, with the result that the Belgian State is precluded from imposing on her a length-of-residence requirement for the grant of guaranteed family benefits for another of her children, who is a national of a non-member country, when that length-of-residence requirement is not imposed in a respect of a child of EU nationality?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community …(OJ L 149, p. 2).

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ L 158, p. 77).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 March 2000 in Case C-309/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Holz Geenen GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion München (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the combined nomenclature — Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 — Rectangular wood blocks used in the construction of window frames)

text:
C 163/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.6.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 28 March 2000                                                          of 30 March 2000
in Case C-309/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       in Case C-178/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
from the Finanzgericht München): Holz Geenen GmbH v                        the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles): Barry Banks and
                Oberfinanzdirektion München (1)                                       Others v Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifi-
cation in the combined nomenclature — Regulation (EC) No                   (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the
1509/97 — Rectangular wood blocks used in the construc-                       legislation applicable — Scope of the E 101 Certificate)
                      tion of window frames)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/03)
                           (2000/C 163/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-178/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-309/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal du
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                  Travail de Bruxelles, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
München, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              proceedings pending before that court between Barry Banks
pending before that court between Holz Geenen GmbH                         and Others and Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie — on the
and Oberfinanzdirektion München — on the validity of                       interpretation of Article 14a(1)(a) and Article 14c of Council
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July 1997                      Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined             application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 204, p. 8) — the Court (First                      self-employed persons and to members of their families
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of                moving within the Community, and of Articles 11a and 12a(7)
the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-                  fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March                1408/71, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
2000, in which it has ruled:                                               (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), and
                                                                           subsequently by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of
                                                                           11 December 1986 (OJ 1986 L 355, p. 5) — the Court (Fifth
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1509/97 of 30 July 1997                      Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined             Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)
nomenclature is invalid in so far as point 2 of the Annex thereto          and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
classifies ‘Rectangular wood blocks, 48 or 85 mm wide x 72 mm              H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
high, used in the construction of window frames, consisting of layers      a judgment on 30 March 2000, in which it held:
of wood glued together with the grain running parallel and with
slightly rounded edges’ under subheading 4418 90 10 of the
combined nomenclature.                                                     1. The term ‘work’ in Article 14a(1)(a) of Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                                social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                                persons and to members of their families moving within the
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
                                                                                Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, and subsequently by
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of 11 December 1986,
                                                                                covers any performance of work, whether in an employed or self-
                                                                                employed capacity.


title: Case T-18/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — DMC v OHIM — Etike’ International (De Giusti Orgoglio)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/26

         Action brought on 18 January 2016 — DMC v OHIM — Etike’ International (De Giusti Orgoglio)
   (Case T-18/16)
   (2016/C 090/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etike’ International Srl (Baronissi, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘De Giusti Orgoglio’ — Application for registration No 9 499 468

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition procedure

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1764/2013-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs;

               —

               order the production of the files relating to the opposition proceedings No B 001757973 and Case R 1764/2013-5.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-255/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias): Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others v Ypourgos Anaptyxis and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Eighth Directive 84/253/EEC — Articles 11 and 15 — Approval of persons responsible for statutory auditing of accounting documents — Possibility of approving persons who have not passed an examination of professional competence — Conditions on which nationals of other Member States may be approved)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-255/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias): Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others v Ypourgos Anaptyxis and Others (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Eighth Directive 84/253/EEC - Articles 11 and 15 - Approval of persons responsible for statutory auditing of accounting documents - Possibility of approving persons who have not passed an examination of professional competence - Conditions on which nationals of other Member States may be approved)
   (2004/C 300/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-255/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece), made by decision of 12 June 2001, received at the Court on 3 July 2001, in the proceedings: between Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others and Ypourgos Anaptyxis, Soma Orkoton Elegkton, interveners: Georgios Samothrakis and Others, and Christos Panagiotidis — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 15 of Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April 1984 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the approval of persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents permits all the Member States to approve persons who satisfy the conditions laid down in that article, namely, persons who have the qualifications in the Member State concerned to carry out the statutory auditing of the documents referred to in Article 1(1) and who did so until the date fixed in Article 15, without their being required first to have passed an examination of professional competence.
               Nevertheless, it is contrary to Article 15 for a Member State to exercise the power provided for therein after the expiry of a period of a year starting to run from the date of application of the national provisions transposing the directive, which date may in no circumstances fall after 1 January 1990.

               2.

               Article 11 of the Eighth Directive enables a host Member State to approve, for the purpose of carrying out the statutory auditing of accounting documents, professional persons already approved in another Member State, without requiring them to pass an examination of professional competence, if the competent authorities of the host Member State consider their qualifications to be equivalent to those required under the national legislation of the host Member State, in accordance with the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.


title: Case T-93/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-93/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/121)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-342/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/49

      Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
      (Case T-342/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/92)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

         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 20 May 2010 in case R 1222/2009-2, and;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MESILETTE’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6494025

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

         Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1033551 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 486204 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, 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 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the signs.


title: Case C-83/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n °1 de Pontevedra (Spain)) — Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Manuel Puga Lueiro, Luis Ángel Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez v Air France SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 2(1) — Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Meaning of ‘cancellation’ — Article 12 — Meaning of ‘further compensation’ — Compensation under national law)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Pontevedra (Spain)) — Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Manuel Puga Lueiro, Luis Ángel Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez v Air France SA
   (Case C-83/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(1) - Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Meaning of ‘cancellation’ - Article 12 - Meaning of ‘further compensation’ - Compensation under national law)
   2011/C 355/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Pontevedra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Manuel Puga Lueiro, Luis Ángel Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez

      Defendant: Air France SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 1 de Pontevedra — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 8, 9 and 12 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘cancellation of a flight’ — Technical faults — Meaning of ‘further compensation’ — Right to compensation under national law

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               ‘Cancellation’, as defined in Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it does not refer only to the situation in which the aeroplane in question fails to take off at all, but also covers the case in which that aeroplane took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers of the said aeroplane were transferred to other flights.

               2.

               The meaning of ‘further compensation’, used in Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted to the effect that it allows the national court to award compensation, under the conditions provided for by the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air or national law, for damage, including non-material damage, arising from breach of a contract of carriage by air. On the other hand, that meaning of ‘further compensation’ may not be the legal basis for the national court to order an air carrier to reimburse to passengers whose flight has been delayed or cancelled the expenses the latter have had to incur because of the failure of that carrier to fulfil its obligations to assist and provide care under Article 8 and Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-55/14: Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/16

         Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)
   (Case T-55/14)
   2014/C 78/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen eG (Vaihingen an der Enz, Germany) (represented by H. Steffan, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1 relating to Community trade mark application No 11 134 947;

               —

               as regards the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1, oblige the defendant to register the mark applied for;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Lembergerland’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 11 134 947

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case C-75/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Obligation to make public the reasons for a determination not to make a project subject to an assessment)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
   (Case C-75/08) (1)

   (Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Obligation to make public the reasons for a determination not to make a project subject to an assessment)
   2009/C 153/22
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Obligation to make available to the public reasons for a decision not to subject a project falling within the classes listed in Annex II to the directive to an assessment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as not requiring that a determination, that it is unnecessary to subject a project falling within Annex II to that directive to an environmental impact assessment, should itself contain the reasons for the competent authority’s decision that the latter was unnecessary. However, if an interested party so requests, the competent administrative authority is obliged to communicate to him the reasons for the determination or the relevant information and documents in response to the request made.

               2.

               If a determination of a Member State not to subject a project, falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 as amended by Directive 2003/35, to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, states the reasons on which it is based, that determination is sufficiently reasoned where the reasons which it contains, added to factors which have already been brought to the attention of interested parties, and supplemented by any necessary additional information which the competent national administration is required to provide to those interested parties at their request, can enable them to decide whether to appeal against that decision.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.