title: Case C-153/08: Action brought on 15 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/20

         Action brought on 15 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-153/08)
   (2008/C 142/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force fiscal legislation taxing winnings from all types of lotteries, games and betting organised outside the Kingdom of Spain, whereas winnings obtained from certain lotteries, games and betting organised within the Kingdom of Spain are exempted from income tax, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and, in particular, under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Spanish legislation, winnings from lotteries and betting organised by Loterías y Apuestas del Estado (the Spanish public-law body in charge of lotteries and betting) or by bodies or entities of the Comunidades Autónomas (Autonomous Communities), and winnings from lotteries organised by the Spanish Red Cross or the Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles (Spanish national association for the blind) are exempt from income tax. However, income from lotteries, games or betting organised by other national bodies or by foreign bodies, including those established in Member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area, is added to the taxable amount and subject to progressive rates of taxation.
   Relying in particular on Lindman and Safir, the Commission points out that, according to that line of authority, the organising of lotteries is to be regarded as a ‘service’ for the purposes of the Treaty. Also according to that case-law, Article 49 EC prohibits any restriction on the freedom to provide services, or any obstacle to that freedom — even where such a restriction or obstacle applies equally to national providers of services and to those of the other Member States — and precludes the application of any rule of national law the effect of which is to make it more difficult to provide services between Member States than to provide services wholly within a particular Member State. Given the particular features of the gaming sector, the case-law accepts certain restrictions imposed by Member States, provided that such measures can be shown to be appropriate and proportionate, as well as non-discriminatory.
   The Commission maintains that the Spanish legislation is discriminatory because the exemption is reserved for certain entities which that legislation defines precisely, and entities of other Member States, albeit of the same nature and in pursuit of the same objectives as the Spanish entities specified in the exemption rule, are excluded from the benefit of that exemption. Accordingly, even if the Spanish authorities had shown, in the course of the infringement proceedings, that the legislation at issue is a measure which is appropriate and proportionate to the stated objective of protecting consumers and public order — which they have failed to do — the legislation at issue could not in any circumstances be regarded as compatible with Community law, in so far as it is wholly discriminatory.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-121/04 P: Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Competition — Cartels — Agreements between undertakings — Proof of an undertaking's participation in meetings of undertakings with an anti-competitive purpose)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 17 November 2005
   in Case C-121/04 P: Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Competition - Cartels - Agreements between undertakings - Proof of an undertaking's participation in meetings of undertakings with an anti-competitive purpose)
   (2006/C 60/24)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-121/04 P: APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 1 March 2004, by Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA)(represented by: I. Dryllerakis, E. Dryllerakis and N. Korogiannakis), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and T. Christoforou, assisted by A. Oikonomou), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 17 November 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The Commission's cross-appeal is dismissed;

               3.

               Minoikes Grammes ANE (Minoan Lines SA) shall bear 90 % of the costs;

               4.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall bear 10 % of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-220/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisances — Treatment of urban waste water — Articles 3, 5 and 6 — Failure to identify sensitive areas — Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges in sensitive areas)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-220/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisances - Treatment of urban waste water - Articles 3, 5 and 6 - Failure to identify sensitive areas - Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges in sensitive areas)
   2011/C 311/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M.J. Lois, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           by identifying as less sensitive areas all the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira and all the coastal waters of the Island of Porto Santo;

                           —

                           by subjecting to treatment less stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, such as the agglomerations of Funchal and Câmara de Lobos, discharged into the coastal waters of the Island of Madeira;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to an agglomeration along the estuary of the River Tagus, namely Quinta do Conde, the provision of collecting systems for urban waster water in accordance with Article 3 of the directive;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure, with regard to the agglomerations of Albufeira/Armação de Pêra, Beja, Chaves and Viseu and four agglomerations discharging on the left bank of the Tagus estuary, Barreiro/Moita, Corroios/Quinta da Bomba, Quinta do Conde and Seixal, treatment more stringent than that prescribed in Article 4 of the directive;

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 91/271;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-544/13 and C-545/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB (C-544/13), Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB (C-545/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Scope — Articles 2(1) and 3, points 1 and 2 — Medicinal products prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process — Exceptions — Medicinal products prepared in a pharmacy in accordance with a medical prescription for an individual patient — Medicinal products prepared in a pharmacy in accordance with the prescriptions of a pharmacopoeia and intended to be supplied directly to the patients served by the pharmacy in question — Directive 2005/29/EC)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden)) — Abcur AB v Apoteket Farmaci AB (C-544/13), Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB (C-545/13)
   (Joined Cases C-544/13 and C-545/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Articles 2(1) and 3, points 1 and 2 - Medicinal products prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process - Exceptions - Medicinal products prepared in a pharmacy in accordance with a medical prescription for an individual patient - Medicinal products prepared in a pharmacy in accordance with the prescriptions of a pharmacopoeia and intended to be supplied directly to the patients served by the pharmacy in question - Directive 2005/29/EC))
   (2015/C 302/03)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Stockholms tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abcur AB

      Defendant: Apoteket Farmaci AB (C-544/13), Apoteket AB and Apoteket Farmaci AB (C-545/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Medicinal products for human use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, issued in accordance with a medical prescription and for which no marketing authorisation has been granted by the competent authorities in a Member State or pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing an European Medicines Agency fall within the scope of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, by virtue of Article 2(1) thereof, if they have been prepared industrially or manufactured by a method involving an industrial process. Those medicinal products are covered by the exception referred to in Article 3, point 1, of that directive, as amended, only if they have been prepared in accordance with a medical prescription issued before their preparation, which must be specifically for a previously identified patient. Those medicinal products are covered by the exception referred to in Article 3, point 2, of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, only if they are delivered directly to patients supplied by the pharmacy which prepared them. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions for application of those provisions are satisfied in the main proceedings;

               2.

               Even where medicinal products for human use, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, fall within the scope of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, advertising practices relating to those medicinal products, such as those alleged in the main proceedings, can also fall within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, provided that the conditions for application of that directive are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


18 . 10 . 97         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                           C 318/37
                                                         CORRIGENDA
              Corrigendum to Communication 97/C 271/23 in Official Journal of the European Communities
                                                No C 271 of 6 September 1997
                                                         ( 97/C 318/72
             1 . On page 14, remove the reference '( 97/C 271/23 )' from the line beneath the sub-heading
             'Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers' and insert it
             beneath the heading ' COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE'.
             2 . On page 14, before the sub-heading ' Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers', insert the
             following new paragraph:
                 ' Cases pending before the Chambers as currently constituted shall be reassigned, with effect
                 from 1 October 1997, to the Chamber composed of the same number of Judges of which the
                 same Judge-Rapporteur is a member with effect from that date .'


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-252/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Renewal of a contract for surveillance of the Belgian coast by aerial photography)

text:
29.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 289/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 16 October 2003                                                             of 16 October 2003
in Case C-252/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-421/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                               the Bundesvergabeamt): Traunfellner GmbH v Österre-
                                                                             ichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-
                                                                                AG (Asfinag) (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Procedures for the award of public service contracts —
Directive 92/50/EEC — Renewal of a contract for surveil-                     (Directive 93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept
       lance of the Belgian coast by aerial photography)                     of a ‘variant’ — Conditions for consideration and assessment
                                                                                for the purpose of awarding a contract)
                         (2003/C 289/04)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/05)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(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-252/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier, assisted by J. Stuyck) v Kingdom of                     In Case C-421/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx): Application for a declaration that:              EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that tribunal between
—    by failing, in respect of a contract to perform services                Traunfellner GmbH and Österreichische Autobahnen- und
     involving coastal surveillance by means of aerial pho-                  Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) on the interpret-
     tography, to place a notice in the Official Journal of the              ation of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
     European Communities, as required under Directive 92/                   concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
     50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the               public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), the Court
     award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1);                (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
     and                                                                     the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken
                                                                             and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
                                                                             M.F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
—    by making use, without justification, of the negotiated                 given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
     procedure without prior publication of a contract notice,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations                  1.    Article 19 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
under that directive and, in particular, Articles 11(3) and                        concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
15(2), thereof, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-                        public works contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that the
P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-                    obligation to set out the minimum specifications required by a
ris, N. Colneric, and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                           contracting authority in order to take variants into consideration
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal                          is not satisfied where the contract documents merely refer to a
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                          provision of national legislation requiring an alternative tender
16 October 2003, in which it:                                                      to ensure the performance of work which is qualitatively
                                                                                equivalent to that for which tenders are invited.
1.   Dismisses the application;                                              2.    Article 30 of Directive 93/37 can apply only to variants which
                                                                                have been properly taken into consideration by the contracting
2.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                   authority in accordance with Article 19 of that directive.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                    (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case C-101/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg)) — Audiolux SA, BIP Investment Partners SA, Jean-Paul Felten, Joseph Weyland, Luxiprivilège SA, Foyer SA, Investas ASBL, Claudie Stein-Lambert, Christiane Worre-Lambert, Baron Antoine De Schorlemer, Jacques Funck, Jean Petitdidier v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), RTL Group, Juan Abello Gallo, Didier Bellens, André Desmarais, Gérald Frère, Jocelyn Lefebvre, Onno Ruding, Gilles Samyn, Martin Taylor, Bertelsmann AG, Siegfried Luther, Thomas Middelhoff, Ewald Wagenbach, Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Erich Schumann, WAZ Finanzierungs-GmbH, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E. Brost & J. Funke GmbH & Co (WAZ) (Directives 77/91/EEC, 79/279/EEC and 2004/25/EC — General principle of Community law on the protection of minority shareholders — None — Company law — Acquisition of control — Mandatory bid — Recommendation 77/534/EEC — Code of Conduct)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg)) — Audiolux SA, BIP Investment Partners SA, Jean-Paul Felten, Joseph Weyland, Luxiprivilège SA, Foyer SA, Investas ASBL, Claudie Stein-Lambert, Christiane Worre-Lambert, Baron Antoine De Schorlemer, Jacques Funck, Jean Petitdidier v Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), RTL Group, Juan Abello Gallo, Didier Bellens, André Desmarais, Gérald Frère, Jocelyn Lefebvre, Onno Ruding, Gilles Samyn, Martin Taylor, Bertelsmann AG, Siegfried Luther, Thomas Middelhoff, Ewald Wagenbach, Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Erich Schumann, WAZ Finanzierungs-GmbH, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E. Brost & J. Funke GmbH & Co (WAZ)
   (Case C-101/08) (1)

   (Directives 77/91/EEC, 79/279/EEC and 2004/25/EC - General principle of Community law on the protection of minority shareholders - None - Company law - Acquisition of control - Mandatory bid - Recommendation 77/534/EEC - Code of Conduct)
   2009/C 297/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Audiolux SA, BIP Investment Partners SA, Jean-Paul Felten, Joseph Weyland, Luxiprivilège SA, Foyer SA, Investas ASBL, Claudie Stein-Lambert, Christiane Worre-Lambert, Baron Antoine De Schorlemer, Jacques Funck, Jean Petitdidier

      Defendants: Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA (GBL), RTL Group, Juan Abello Gallo, Didier Bellens, André Desmarais, Gérald Frère, Jocelyn Lefebvre, Onno Ruding, Gilles Samyn, Martin Taylor, Bertelsmann AG, Siegfried Luther, Thomas Middelhoff, Ewald Wagenbach, Rolf Schmidt-Holz, Erich Schumann, WAZ Finanzierungs-GmbH, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitungsverlagsgesellschaft E. Brost & J. Funke GmbH & Co (WAZ)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) — Interpretation of (1) Articles 20 and 42 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies … in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1), (2) the Commission Recommendation of 25 July 1977 concerning a European code of conduct relating to transactions in transferable securities (OJ 1977 L 212 p. 37), (3) Council Directive 79/279/EEC of 5 March 1979 coordinating the conditions for the admission of securities to official stock exchange listing (OJ 1979 L 66, p. 21) and (4) Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12) — Is there, in Community law, a general principle of the equality of shareholders? — If so, what is the scope ratione materiae and ratione temporis of that principle?

      Operative part of the judgment

   Community law does not include any general principle of law under which minority shareholders are protected by an obligation on the dominant shareholder, when acquiring or exercising control of a company, to offer to buy their shares under the same conditions as those agreed when a shareholding conferring or strengthening the control of the dominant shareholder was acquired.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case C-509/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany lodged on 9 December 2009 — eDate Advertising GmbH v X

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany lodged on 9 December 2009 — eDate Advertising GmbH v X
   (Case C-509/09)
   2010/C 134/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof, Germany

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: eDate Advertising GmbH

      Defendant: X

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the phrase ‘the place where the harmful event. may occur’ in Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation 44/2001’) to be interpreted as meaning, in the event of (possible) infringements of the right to protection of personality by means of content on an Internet website,
               that the person concerned may also bring an action for an injunction against the operator of the website, irrespective of the Member State in which the operator is established, in the courts of any Member State in which the website may be accessed,
               or
               does the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State in which the operator of the website is not established require that there be a special connection between the contested content or the website and the State of the court seised (domestic connecting factor) going beyond technically possible accessibility?

               2.

               If such a special domestic connecting factor is necessary:

                           What are the criteria which determine that connection?

                           Does it depend on whether the intention of the operator is that the contested website is specifically (also) targeted at the Internet users in the State of the court seised or is it sufficient for the information which may be accessed on the website to have an objective connection to the State of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on the basis of the content of the website to which the applicant objects, a collision of conflicting interests — the applicant’s interest in respect for his right to protection of personality and the operator’s interest in the design of his website and in news reporting — may actually have occurred or may occur in the State of the court seised?

                           Does the determination of the special domestic connecting factor depend upon the number of times the website to which the applicant objects has been accessed from the State of the court seised?

               3.

               If no special domestic connecting factor is required in order to make a positive finding on jurisdiction, or if it is sufficient for the presumption of such a special domestic connecting factor that the information to which the applicant objects has an objective connection to the State of the court seised, in the sense that in the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on the basis of the content of the website to which the applicant objects, a collision of conflicting interests may actually have occurred or may occur in the State of the court seised and the existence of a special domestic connecting factor may be presumed without requiring a finding as to a minimum number of times the website to which the applicant objects has been accessed from the State of the court seised:
               Must Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) be interpreted as meaning:

                           that those provisions should be attributed with a conflict-of-laws character in the sense that for the field of private law they also require the exclusive application of the law applicable in the country of origin, to the exclusion of national conflict-of-law rules,
                           or

                           do those provisions operate as a corrective at a substantive law level, by means of which the substantive law outcome under the law declared to be applicable pursuant to the national conflict-of-law rules is altered and adjusted to the requirements of the country of origin?

                           In the event that Article 3(1) and (2) of the Directive on electronic commerce have a conflict-of-laws character:
                           Do those provisions merely require the exclusive application of the substantive law applicable in the country of origin or also the application of the conflict-of-law rules applicable there, with the consequence that a renvoi under the law of the country of origin to the law of the target State remains possible?


title: Case C-467/11 P: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 — Audi AG, Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/5

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2012 — Audi AG, Volkswagen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-467/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 303/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Audi AG, Volkswagen AG (represented by: P. Kather, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-318/09 Audi and Volkswagen v OHMI (TDI), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 May 2009 (Case R 226/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign TDI as a Community trade mark for the goods in Class 12 (Vehicles and constructive parts thereof’) — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign TDI

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal.

               2.

               Audi AG and Volkswagen AG are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case C-340/17 P: Appeal brought on 7 June 2017 by Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2017 in Case T-638/15: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/3

         Appeal brought on 7 June 2017 by Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2017 in Case T-638/15: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO
   (Case C-340/17 P)
   (2017/C 347/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (represented by: E. Baud and P. Marchiset, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               as a preliminary ruling and absent EUIPO’s written approval to suspend enforcement of the judgment, suspend the application of the judgment;

               —

               cancel and set aside the judgment on the grounds laid down in this Petition […];

               —

               cancel EUIPO’s First Board of Appeal decision R 1323/2014-1 dated August 11, 2015;

               —

               alternatively cancel the judgment and order a stay on proceedings until the end of the Brexit process or at the earliest May 31, 2019 corresponding to the deadline set forth in article 50 of the Treaty;

               —

               order Lion Laboratories and the European Union Intellectual Property Office to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of ACS relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-638/15 and to the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1)

               the first ground lies on distortion of ACS’ statements in its petition in paragraph 86 of the judgment by stating that 64 devices were sold ‘during the relevant periods’, while such (undisputed) figure related to the First Period only (from October 5, 2004 to October 4, 2009).

               2)

               the second ground also lies on distortion of a letter dated March 21, 2013 sent by Lion Laboratories’ counsel to EUIPO and also a violation of Regulation 207/2009 (1) and article 57(2) and Regulation 2868/95 (2) (articles 22(2) and 40(5)). Such letter did not mention the registration number of the earlier mark (UK trade mark No. 2040518), but instead two references to UK trade mark No. 2371210, implying that Lion Laboratories (i) did not fulfil its obligation to provide evidence of use to the effect of evidencing use of UK trade mark No. 2040518 or of the opposing trade mark, and/or (ii) substituted the trade mark on which the proceedings were based.

               3)

               The third ground addresses how the General Court (i) violated the notion of ‘genuine use’, as provided in Regulation 207/2009, interpreted in the Ansul case (C-40/01, 11 March 2003) and (ii) applied a wrong methodology. The General Court failed to analyze the First Period solely and to take into account the projected sales figures agreed upon in an exclusive licence agreement. Besides, and in light of the very low and time limited quantitative use during First Period, genuine use was not established by reference to several factors not analyzed by the General Court (such as (i) the Parties’ projected sales figures in the licence agreement, (ii) the characteristics of the market (comprising 30 million customers), (iii) the nature of the goods (including breathalyzers) and (iv) the existence of UK trade mark No.2371210 filed in 2004). The General Court gave disproportionate consideration to some documents, including elements relating to services while the earlier mark was opposed for goods in class 9 only.

               4)

               The fourth ground analyzes how the General Court also violated the notion of ‘genuine use’ by applying an improper standard while determining if the earlier mark was used as a trade mark. Besides, the Céline case from this Court (C-17/06, 11 September 2007) cannot be applied when (i) other marks are affixed on the products, (ii) such products had other names and (iii) the mark was also perceived as a common name by some customers. These circumstances further prevent a link to be established in the mind of the customer between the earlier mark and the sign used as a common name or a corporate name.

               5)

               The fifth ground raises a public order issue: a UK earlier right shall not permit the cancellation of a EU mark in light of the Brexit process and article 50 of the European Union Treaty notification sent by the United Kingdom. Permitting such a cancellation would increase expenses and create unnecessary and disproportionate obstacles to unitary trade mark protection, while in 2 years or less, the United Kingdom will no longer be part of the EU unitary trade mark system. The General Court therefore violated the territoriality principle recognized by the 1883 Paris Convention and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995, L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-362/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Lacamanda Group v OHIM — Woolley (HENLEY)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/82

         Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Lacamanda Group v OHIM — Woolley (HENLEY)
   (Case T-362/15)
   (2015/C 294/99)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Lacamanda Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nigel Woolley (Braceborough, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HENLEY’ — Community trade mark No 4 7 43  563

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 2255/2012-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case T-479/13: Action brought on 3 September 2013 — Marchiani v Parliament

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/26

         Action brought on 3 September 2013 — Marchiani v Parliament
   (Case T-479/13)
   2013/C 336/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Charles Marchiani (Toulon, France) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary General of 4 July 2013;

               —

               annul the debit note of 5 July 2013;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of the European Parliament to recover the sums received between 2001 and 2004 by the applicant as Parliamentary assistance expenses.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an irregularity in procedure, in so far as the decision of the of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 4 July 2013 is in violation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, of the adversarial principle and of the rights of defence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the regulation concerning fees and expenses of Members of the Parliament (the FEM regulation).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment of the documents on the file.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of the Secretary General of the European Parliament when adopting the decision dated 4 July 2013.

               5.

               Fifth and Sixth pleas in law, alleging that the recovery of the sums in question is time-barred.


title: Case C-345/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2008 — Krzysztof Pesla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2008 — Krzysztof Pesla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
   (Case C-345/08)
   (2008/C 260/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krzysztof Pesla

      Defendant: Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 39 EC that a finding of equivalence under Paragraph 112a(1) and (2) of the Deutsches Richtergesetz (German Law on Judges) is made only if can be established on the basis of the documentary evidence submitted that the EU citizen has the knowledge and skills as tested in the (German legal) examination of mandatory subjects provided for in Paragraph 5(1) of the Deutsches Richtergesetz?

               2.

               If question 1 is to be answered in the negative: Does Article 39 EC require that the only criterion for an assessment of equivalence which is consistent with European law is whether the university diploma obtained by the EU citizen in the EU together with the additional evidence submitted by him of educational performance and experience is comparable from the point of view of the (intellectual) level of education and the extent of that education to the first German State examination in law?

               3.

               If question 2 is also to be answered in the negative: Is it compatible with Article 39 EC, if the finding of equivalence under Paragraph 112a(1) and (2) of the Deutsches Richtergesetz still takes the material examined in the mandatory subjects of the first (German legal) State examination as its reference point, but in the light of the legal education successfully completed elsewhere in the Community only somewhat ‘lowered’ requirements are imposed?


title: Case T-495/14: Action brought on 26 June14 — Theodorakis and Theodoraki v Council

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/52

         Action brought on 26 June14 — Theodorakis and Theodoraki v Council
   (Case T-495/14)
   2014/C 292/64
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Georgios Theodorakis (Chania. Greece) and Maria Theodoraki (Chania. Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1 4 31  193 ,58, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicants 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 1 1 44  954 ,86, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

               —

               in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicants as compensation for the damage caused to the applicants by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50  000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicants by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50  000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicants by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicants seek from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage they have suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.
   The applicants maintain that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicants’ bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.
   In particular, the applicants maintain that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

               —

               First, infringement of the right to property;

               —

               Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

               —

               Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.

               —

               The applicants submit that the conditions, as laid down in settled case-law, for the defendant incurring non-contractual liability to pay compensation to them are satisfied


title: Case C-400/10 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Children whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — Interpretation of rights of custody — General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E.
   (Case C-400/10 PPU) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Children whose parents are not married - Father’s rights of custody - Interpretation of ‘rights of custody’ - General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
   2010/C 328/15
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: J. McB.

      Defendant: L. E.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Child whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — National legislation requiring the father to obtain an order from the court with jurisdiction in order to have rights of custody in respect of the child which render wrongful the child’s removal or retention outside the child’s country of habitual residence.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing by its law that the acquisition of rights of custody by a child’s father, where he is not married to the child’s mother, is dependent on the father’s obtaining a judgment from a national court with jurisdiction awarding such rights to him, on the basis of which the removal of the child by its mother or the retention of that child may be considered wrongful, within the meaning of Article 2(11) of that regulation

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: Case T-321/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/71

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)
   (Case T-321/06)
   (2006/C 326/148)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca Lda (Santo Tirso, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Óptica SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 notified to the applicant 27 September 2006, in cancellation proceedings No 830C (Case No R 945/2005-1) and consequently declare Community trade mark No 573 774‘GENERAL OPTICA’ filed on 10 July 1997 and registered on 10 September 1999, as invalid, or in the alternative, revoked;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘GENERAL OPTICA’ for services in class 42 (Opticians' services) — Community trade mark No 573 774

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: General Óptica SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national trade name ‘Generalóptica’ for import and retail sale of optical, precision and photographic apparatus

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of among others Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the two signs and the applicant's sign is granted national protection.
   Infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as OHIM omitted its duty to ask the applicant to present evidence of the earlier use invoked.


title: Case C-69/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium), lodged on 16 February 2011 — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium), lodged on 16 February 2011 — Connoisseur Belgium BVBA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-69/11)
   2011/C 145/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Connoisseur Belgium BVBA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Does Article 26 of the Wetboek van de BTW (the Belgian VAT Code) infringe Article 11.A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) now incorporated in Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principle of the neutrality of VAT, if that provision is interpreted as meaning that VAT is due on costs or amounts which could contractually be charged to the other contracting party but which are not so charged?

      (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)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-301/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2009 — Lumenis v OHIM (FACES)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2009 — Lumenis v OHIM (FACES)
   (Case T-301/07) (1)

   2010/C 11/71

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-359/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Modena, Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the Criminal Proceedings against Christian Lanzotti

text:
7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 305/13
both resident in Belgium, when the couple are insured on a                 Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo Ripa di Meana
voluntary basis under the Belgian social security scheme in                and European Parliament was brought before the Court of
respect of health insurance?                                               Justice of the European Communities on 8 October 2002 by
                                                                           Carlo Ripa di Meana, represented by Wilma Viscardini and
                                                                           Gabriele Donà.
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978
     concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between
     the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco
     (OJ L 264 of 27.9.1978, p. 1).                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —      set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                                9 July 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                Instance of the European Communities in Case T-127/01
                                                                                between Carlo Ripa di Meana and European Parliament;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     —      declare admissible the application in Case T-127/01;
Modena, Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari by
order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the Criminal                        —      refer Case T-127/01 back to the Court of First Instance
             Proceedings against Christian Lanzotti                               for judgment on the substance;
                          (Case C-359/02)                                  —      order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                                                                                appeal and of proceedings at first instance on the matter
                          (2002/C 305/21)                                         of admissibility.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           Pleas and main arguments
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Modena,
Ufficio del Giudice per le indagini preliminari (Modena District
Court, Office of the Investigating Judge) of 27 June 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a                    By order of 9 July 2002, the Court of First Instance upheld the
preliminary ruling in the Criminal Proceedings against Chris-              objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Parliament
tian Lanzotti on the following question:                                   in Case T-127/01 and, accordingly, declared inadmissible the
                                                                           application made by Mr Ripa di Meana for annulment of the
Are national rules such as Articles 4(1), 4a and 4b of the Italian         decision of the European Parliament of 26 March 2001
Law No 401/89, as amended by Article 37 of Law No 388/00,                  suspending the applicant’s pension as former Member of the
which prohibit and make subject to criminal penalties the                  European Parliament following his election to the legislative
pursuit by any person in any place of the activities of taking,            assembly for the Region of Umbria.
accepting, booking and forwarding bets placed, in particular
on sporting events, without obtaining the prior authorisation
and licence required by domestic law, compatible with                      In particular, the Court of First Instance held Mr Ripa di
Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. EC on the freedom                Meana’s application to be out of time inasmuch as the letter of
of establishment and the freedom to provide cross-border                   26 March 2001, not containing any new information not
services?                                                                  contained in the letter of the European Parliament of 26 Janu-
                                                                           ary 2001 and since it was not the result of a re-examination of
                                                                           the applicant’s situation in the light of factual and legal
                                                                           arguments put forward by him in his letter of 15 March
                                                                           2001, was to be deemed ‘merely confirming the decision of
                                                                           26 January 2001’.
Appeal brought on 8 October 2002 by Carlo Ripa di
Meana against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the                    Mr Ripa di Meana is challenging that order on the ground that
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       it is vitiated by a number of manifest errors of law.
European Communities in Case T-127/01 between Carlo
            Ripa di Meana and European Parliament
                                                                           In particular, Mr Ripa di Meana claims that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance: committed an error of procedure; infringed the rights
                         (Case C-360/02 P)                                 of the defence; attributed the wrong legal classification to the
                                                                           letters of 26 January 2001 and 26 March 2001. Furthermore,
                          (2002/C 305/22)                                  the Court of First Instance misapplied Community case-law
                                                                           concerning confirmatory acts and did not take account of
                                                                           case-law regarding ‘excusable error’.
An appeal against the order delivered on 9 July 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-524/07: Action brought on 26 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/11

         Action brought on 26 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-524/07)
   (2008/C 37/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not registering as a matter of principle older imported used vehicles which were registered in another Member State, but do not comply with certain Austrian provisions on exhaust emissions and noise protection, whereas vehicles of the same construction which have already been registered in Austria are exempt from those requirements in cases of re-registration, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 28 EC, quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States. All rules or measures enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
   Under the provisions of the Austrian Law on Motor Vehicles, older imported used cars which were registered in another Member State, but do not comply with certain Austrian provisions on exhaust emissions and noise protection, are not, as a matter of principle, granted registration in Austria, although vehicles of the same construction which have already been registered in Austria are exempt from those requirements in cases of re-registration. The Republic of Austria has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.
   National rules which make the first registration in that Member State of motor vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State contingent upon compliance with certain limits in respect of noise and exhaust emissions, which are stricter than the applicable provisions of secondary Community law, are capable of restricting intra-Community trade. In addition, that restriction on trade constitutes discrimination against foreign products as the stricter limits do not have to be complied with by domestic used vehicles, which are re-registered after a change of owner. Furthermore, the Austrian provisions do not make provision for registered vehicles to be taken off the road if they do not comply with the limits in respect of exhaust emissions and noise protection, which are applied in respect of single vehicle approvals of imported vehicles.
   The applicability of the Treaty provisions on the free movement of goods is not precluded in the present case by other specific rules. First, the provisions of Directive 93/59/EEC and Directive 92/97/EEC, which establish certain standards for emissions and noise and to which Austrian law refers with regard to the limits to be complied with, do not apply to vehicles which were brought into circulation in a Member State before the respective dates specified in those directives. Secondly, point 1 of Annex II to the EEA Agreement cannot be used to assess situations which, like the import of a motor vehicle from another Member State into Austria at a time when both Austria and the other Member State belonged to the Community, are covered exclusively by Community law.
   Restrictions on intra-Community trade may be justified on the grounds specifically mentioned in Article 30 EC or on other overriding grounds of public interest. The rules in question must be suitable, necessary and proportionate and the restrictions must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
   There is, however, no such justification for the restriction on trade in the present case. It is not possible to rely on grounds of health or environmental protection in order to refuse to register imported vehicles if the re-registration of used vehicles of the same construction which have already been registered in Austria is not refused on those grounds. In addition, according to the Commission, there are less restrictive measures which may be used to ensure the transition to vehicles which are more favourable in terms of emission and noise. The achievement of health and environmental protection objectives exclusively to the detriment of imported vehicles is not, however, compatible with the principles of the free movement of goods.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/25

         Action brought on 17 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Case C-76/04
   (2004/C 94/53)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and W. Wils, acting as Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/17/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 20 April 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 110, p. 28.


title: Case C-294/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 13 July 2000 in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulsen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner

text:
7.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 285/3
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:                 May a Member State continue, in particular after the adoption
                                                                            of Directive 92/51/EEC on a second general recognition
                                                                            system (1), to reserve an activity allied to medicine, such as that
2.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now                       of a non-medical practitioner under the German Heilpraktiker-
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) and Regulation (EEC)                        gesetz (Law on non-medical practitioners, RGBl I 251/1939)
      No 1408/71 to be interpreted as precluding national                   in the version currently in force, to holders of the diploma of
      rules which, for the qualifying period for a benefit                  doctor, or is that now precluded in particular by Article 43
      stemming from the insurance contingency of reduced                    EC (formerly Article 52 of the EC Treaty) on freedom of
      capacity for work not to apply, require not only that the             establishment and Article 50 EC (formerly Article 60 of the EC
      insurance contingency is the result of an accident at work,           Treaty) on freedom to provide services?
      but also that the insurance contingency materialised in
      respect of a person insured compulsorily with a pension
      insurance institution under the (Austrian) Allgemeines                Do the said provisions of European law preclude national
      Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social Secur-               provisions which reserve training for activities which are
      ity) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or in respect           regulated by legal provisions in the field of health to the
      of a person insured privately under Paragraph 19a of the              institutions designated for that purpose and prohibit the
      (Austrian) Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG)               offering or procuring of such training by other persons or
      and therefore do not cover accidents at word sustained                institutions and advertising therefor, even if that training
      during employment in other Member States?                             relates only to certain branches of medical activity?
3.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) to be interpreted as contrary to
      Article 9a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and national                (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
      rules which preclude in general any prolongation of the
      reference period in respect of the period during which a
      pension is received or limits such prolongation to cases
      of entitlement to a pension stemming from the statutory
      accident insurance of the Member State concerned?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 2.
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Action brought on 1 August 2000 by the Commission of
(3) OJ 1992 136, p. 28.                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-295/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 285/07)
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 13 July                     for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
2000 in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulsen für                        Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
          Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-294/00)
                                                                            (a)   declare that, by maintaining in force a tax payable by
                                                                                passengers disembarking or embarking in the ports of
                          (2000/C 285/06)                                         Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers arrive
                                                                                from, or are travelling to, ports in another Member State
                                                                                or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-                        territory, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 13 July 2000, which was                          its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a prelimi-                    (EEC) No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the
nary ruling in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für                        principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner on the following                           transport between Member States and between Member
questions:                                                                        States and third countries;


title: Case T-488/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — France v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial contribution — Community structural assistance in Martinique — Action for annulment — Public contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — France v Commission
   (Case T-488/10) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial contribution - Community structural assistance in Martinique - Action for annulment - Public contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of sports, recreation and leisure facilities - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)
   2012/C 32/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytè, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of European Commission Decision No C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document for objective 1 for Community structural assistance in Martinique, France.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-30/17: Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Bender v Parliament

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 6 February 2017 — Bender v Parliament
   (Case T-30/17)
   (2017/C 178/54)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2002 in Case C-312/00 P: Commission of the European Communities v Camar Srl and Others (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Request for additional import licences — Adjustment of tariff quota where necessary — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
8.2.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 31/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann and
                                                                             V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                      of 12 December 2002                                    12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by not complying with Commission Decision
in Case C-209/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                2000/392/EC of 8 July 1999 on a measure implemented by
            ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                                                                                the Federal Republic of Germany for Westdeutsche Landesbank
                                                                                — Girozentrale (WestLB), the Federal Republic of Germany
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC and
Measure implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany                             Article 3 of that decision;
for the bank Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale
(WestLB) — Merger of the Wohnungsbauförderungsanstalt                        2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (WfA) with WestLB —
Resulting increase in own funds of WestLB — Remuneration
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
of the Land as sole shareholder in WfA — Commission
Decision 2000/392/EC — Obligation to recover the illegal
               State aid — Failure to implement)
                          (2003/C 31/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                of 10 December 2002
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            in Case C-312/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities v Camar Srl and Others (1)
In Case C-209/00, Commission of the European Communities                     (Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas
(Agents: F. Santaolalla and K.-D. Borchardt) v Federal Republic              — Request for additional import licences — Adjustment of
of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by H.-F. Wissel):                tariff quota where necessary — Non-contractual liability of
Application for a declaration that, by not adopting within the                the Community — Action for annulment — Admissibility)
prescribed time-limit the measures necessary to withdraw and
recover the State aid granted to the Westdeutsche Landesbank                                            (2003/C 31/02)
Girozentrale between 1992 and 1998 which was declared
incompatible with the common market by Commission                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
Decision 2000/392/EC of 8 July 1999 on a measure
implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Westdeutsche Landesbank — Girozentrale (WestLB) (OJ 2000                                         in the European Court Reports)
L 150, p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 249 EC in conjunction
with Article 3 of that decision, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  In Case C-312/00 P: Commission of the European Communi-
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber,                  ties (Agents: C. van der Hauwaert and L. Visaggio, assisted by
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              8.2.2003
A. Dal Ferro) appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of
8 June 2000, in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/                                              (Fifth Chamber)
98 Camar and Tico v Commission and Council [2000] ECR II-
2193, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                                   of 12 December 2002
to the proceedings being: Camar Srl, established in Florence
(Italy), (avocats: W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà),               in Case C-324/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
applicant at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97                the Finanzgericht Münster): Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH v
and T-117/98, Tico Srl, established in Padua (Italy), (avocats:                                    Finanzamt Steinfurt (1)
W. Viscardini Donà, M. Paolin and S. Donà), applicant at first
instance in Case T-117/98, Council of the European Union                     (Freedom of establishment — Tax provisions — Corporation
(Agent: by F. Ruggeri Laderchi), defendant at first instance in              tax — Covert distribution of profits — Tax credit —
Case T-260/97, French Republic (Agents: C. Vasak and G. de                             Coherence of the tax system — Tax evasion)
Bergues) intervener at first instance in Joined Cases T-79/96
and T-260/97, and Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted                                          (2003/C 31/03)
by F. Quadri), intervener at first instance in Case T-79/96, —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                                     (Language of the case: German)
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
C.W.A. Timmermans, (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                                   in the European Court Reports)
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the
                                                                             In Case C-324/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002, in
                                                                             EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary
which it:
                                                                             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Lankhorst-Hohorst GmbH and Finanzamt Steinfurt, on the
                                                                             interpretation of Article 43 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the
1.    Set aside the judgment of 8 June 2000 in the Court of First            Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
      instance in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98                A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
      Camar and Tico v Commission and Council in so far as it                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      allowed, in Case T-117/98, the application for annulment of            on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:
      the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities
      of 23 April 1998 rejecting the application made by Camar Srl           Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as precluding a measure such as
      and Tico Srl on the basis of Article 16(3) of Council Regulation       that contained in Paragraph 8a(1), Head 2, of the Körperschaft-
      (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common                      steuergesetz (Law on corporation tax).
      organisation of the markets in the banana sector;
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3.    Dismisses the application annulment in Case T-117/98 as
      inadmissible;                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 December 2002
4.    Order Camar Srl and Tico Srl to pay the costs in Case T-117/           in Case C-385/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      98;                                                                    the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): F. W. L. de Groot v
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën ( 1)
5.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal               (Free movement of workers — Tax convention — Nether-
      proceedings.                                                                   lands rules on the avoidance of double taxation)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-385/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a


title: Case T-191/12: Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/7

         Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)
   (Case T-191/12)
   2012/C 209/12
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Textiles Well SA (Le Vigan, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2012 in case R 2552/2010-1;

               —

               Reject the Opposition No 1299967; and

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark ‘wellness inspired by nature’, for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No W00924808

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 527630 of the word mark ‘WELL’, for goods in class 25; French trade mark registration No 99804486 of the word mark ‘WELLNESS’, for goods in class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and refused protection to the international registration for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-141/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/37

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-141/15)
   (2015/C 213/62)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103 of 16 January 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 53) in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 2 1 23  199,04incurred by the Czech Republic;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 (1) and the principle of legal certainty and hence the protection of legitimate expectations

                           —

                           The applicant submits in this connection that in the contested decision the European Commission imposed a financial correction on the ground of ineligible expenditure for measures which had been agreed by the procedure laid down in Article 5 of Council Regulation No 479/2008, and there was therefore a breach of that provision and of the principle of legal certainty and hence the protection of legitimate expectations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 11 and 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005

                           —

                           The applicant submits on this point that there was a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Articles 11 and 16 of Commission Regulation No 885/2006 and Article 31 of Council Regulation No 1290/2005 (3), since the European Commission additionally included the financial years 2010 to 2012 in investigations VT/VI/2009/004/CZ and VT/VI/2009/101/CZ.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case T-372/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2008 — Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2008 — Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)
   (Case T-372/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 55/45)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH (Rohrbach, Austria) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH, formerly Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2006 (Case R 184/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG and Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH
   Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH and Eckes-Granini Group GmbH are ordered to bear their own costs and are also ordered to pay half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) each.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-245/07: Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Virsa v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/46

         Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Virsa v Council and Commission
   (Case T-245/07)
   (2007/C 211/86)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Virsa, S. Coop. L. (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of one million six hundred and fifty-five thousand four hundred and ten euros (EUR 1 655 410);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put forward in the Case T-217/07 Las Palmeras v Council and Commission.


title: Case T-521/15: Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Diesel v OHIM — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (curved and angled line)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/48

         Action brought on 7 September 2015 — Diesel v OHIM — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (curved and angled line)
   (Case T-521/15)
   (2015/C 381/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Gaul, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (Representation of a curved or angled line) — Application for registration No 11 404 019

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2015 in Case R 3291/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case T-160/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/60

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2007 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)
   (Case T-160/06) (1)

   (2008/C 51/110)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.