title: Case T-281/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 251/16              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The pleas in law and arguments of the applicant are the same
                                                                        as in Case T-278/03 (Van Mannekus v Council).
The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade
marks and company names containing the word ‘Galileo’ as an
                                                                        (1) OJ L 143, p. 5.
essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by
the Commission as the name for the Community project on
the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their
trade mark rights.
The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The
applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on
the alleged similarity between the signs in question and                Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura
between the goods and services sold by the applicants and                        against the Council of the European Union
the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim
that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard                                     (Case T-281/03)
to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of
proportionality.                                                                                (2003/C 251/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 5 August 2003 by Xanthippi Liakoura,
                                                                        residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, lawyer.
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus &
   Co. B.V. against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-280/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/30)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Council of 5 May 2003 in so far
                                                                              as it does not:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 August 2003 by Van Mannekus & Co. B.V.,
Schiedam (Netherlands), represented by H. Bleier, lawyer.                    1.    delete, from the definitive report for the period from
                                                                                1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, the following words
                                                                                included under general observations: ‘She is encour-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                        aged to resume tasks of coordination and distribution
                                                                                of work in the Pool which she has performed
                                                                                efficiently in the past’;
—     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June
      2003 amending the antidumping measures imposed by
      Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned
      (scintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic              2.    include a reference in that report to her ‘capacity for
      of China (1);                                                                mobility and versatility’;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the            —     order the Council to pay the costs.
      costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested regulation the Council altered the nature of
antidumping duties on imports of dead-burned magnesia ori-              The applicant takes issue with the appointing authority's
ginating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a            refusal to delete one phrase and include another in her staff
partial interim review.                                                 report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 251/17
In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas:
                                                                         The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
                                                                         counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
—    failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-          candidature for the post was rejected.
     tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
     to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
     in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment         In support of his action, the application claims that there has
     of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;                        been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
                                                                         of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
                                                                         breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
                                                                         vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
—    inconsistency in the marks;
                                                                         tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
                                                                         to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
                                                                         Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
—    failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports           the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
     Committee;                                                          of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
                                                                         of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
                                                                         welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
—    that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;             have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
                                                                         a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
                                                                         applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
—    that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a                    competent to make a determination in respect of the
     capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore           complaint and to reject it.
     be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
     be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.
                                                                         Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                  (Case T-284/03)
                        (Case T-282/03)                                                             (2003/C 251/33)
                        (2003/C 251/32)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
An action against the Commission of the European                         of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               Aycinena, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul                     Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by               lawyers.
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
                                                                                cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
—    annul the entire selection procedure following notice of                   first step of Grade LA 6;
     vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;
                                                                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
—    annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
     the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
     dature for that post;                                               In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
                                                                         assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                              reasonable career prospects (Article 5(3) of the Staff


title: Case C-57/06 P: Order of the Court of 26 January 2007 — Elisabetta Righini v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Temporary staff — Classification by grade and step — Classification in a higher career bracket — Distortion of the facts — Defective statement of reasons — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Order of the Court of 26 January 2007 — Elisabetta Righini v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-57/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Temporary staff - Classification by grade and step - Classification in a higher career bracket - Distortion of the facts - Defective statement of reasons - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2007/C 82/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Elisabetta Righini (represented by E. Boigelot, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, avocat)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2005 in Case T-145/04 Righini v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of the Commission's decisions to classify the applicant on her entry into service in Grade A7/3 and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of the decision of 21 January 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Righini is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case F-73/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Reform of the EIB system of remuneration and salary progression)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2014 — Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Case F-73/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Reform of the EIB system of remuneration and salary progression)
   2014/C 85/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz, T. Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and P.E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the decisions contained in salary slips to apply the general decision of the European Investment Bank setting a salary progression capped at 2.8% for all staff and the decision establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 % of salary and, second, a subsequent application for the institution to be ordered to pay the difference in remuneration together with damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bodson and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012, p. 33.


title: Case T-646/16 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/51

         Appeal brought on 6 September 2016 by Erik Simpson against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 June 2016 in Case F-142/11 RENV Simpson v Council
   (Case T-646/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 24 June 2016 in Case 142/11 RENV Erik Simpson v Council, insofar as it rejects the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010 and declares that the applicant has to bear its own costs and the costs of the Council;

               —

               refer the case to the First Instance Judge, if needed; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that, regarding the obligation to state grounds the CST has made an error in law, has infringed the European law, has not provided its order with the prescribed grounds and has distorted evidence.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, regarding the principle of equal treatment and the manifest error of appraisal the appellant alleges that the CST has distorted evidence, has made an error in law, has infringed the European law and has not provided the contested order with a sufficient motivation.


title: Case C-346/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany)) — Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG v Land Niedersachsen (Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers in the context of the provision of services — Procedures for the award of public works contracts — Social protection of workers)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany)) — Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG v Land Niedersachsen
   (Case C-346/06) (1)

   (Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers in the context of the provision of services - Procedures for the award of public works contracts - Social protection of workers)
   (2008/C 128/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Celle
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Land Niedersachsen
   Re:
   Preliminary reference — Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National legislation requiring undertakings involved in the tendering procedure for public-works contracts to give a commitment that they will comply with, and ensure compliance by their subcontractors with, the provisions on minimum pay prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where the services in question are to be provided.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, precludes an authority of a Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from adopting a measure of a legislative nature requiring the contracting authority to designate as contractors for public works contracts only those undertakings which, when submitting their tenders, agree in writing to pay their employees, in return for performance of the services concerned, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement the minimum wage in force at the place where those services are performed.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-726/14: Action brought on 26 September 2014  — Novar v OHIM

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/39

         Action brought on 26 September 2014 — Novar v OHIM
   (Case T-726/14)
   (2015/C 007/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novar GmbH (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Weede, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant Office to pay EUR 2  498,00 plus interest in the amount of 5 percentage points over the base rate for the period since the legal proceedings began;

               —

               order the defendant Office to pay the costs, including the costs of representing the applicant in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   Plea in law: Non-contractual liability in accordance with Article 118(3) of Regulation No 207/2009
   The applicant asserts that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals and that there is a causal link between action and damage. The applicant argues that the unlawful action resides in the decision of 14 May 2013 rejecting the opposition. A sufficiently serious breach of law exists because, in the opposition decision of 14 May 2013, the Office assumed — contrary to the information contained in the letter of 22 June 2012 regarding the documents to be submitted in trade mark opposition proceedings B002027251 for the substantiation of earlier rights — additional requirements for proving the earlier rights and for that reason failed to take account of the applicant’s earlier rights. That infringement was the cause of the additional legal costs required to be incurred by the applicant in the context of the appeal against the decision of 14 May 2013, which was remedied by the decision of the Opposition Division of 17 October 2013.


title: Case F-151/12: Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/26

         Action brought on 13 December 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-151/12)
   2013/C 55/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance in accordance with Article 4 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               to the extent necessary, annul the decision rejecting his complaint of 31 August 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-480/15: Action brought on 19 August 2015 — KZ and Others v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/39

         Action brought on 19 August 2015 — KZ and Others v Commission
   (Case T-480/15)
   (2015/C 337/44)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicants: KZ (Poland), LA (Poland), LB (Austria), LC (Austria) (represented by: S. Dudzik, legal adviser, and J. Budzik, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C(2015) 4284 final of 19 June 2015 in Case AT.39864 — BASF, rejecting the applicants’ complaint on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 772/2004 (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their action, the applicants put forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the principle of effective legal protection and of the right to an effective judicial remedy

                           —

                           By rejecting the applicants’ complaint on the basis of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 in a situation resulting in a breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, to the detriment of the applicants — even though the competent national body for the protection of competition was unable to institute proceedings on the ground that the period provided for under national law for instituting proceedings relating to a breach of competition law had expired, and the applicants also did not have the possibility effectively to seek compensation by bringing an action before a national court — the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights to effective legal protection and to an effective judicial remedy.

               2.

               Second plea in law: breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)

                           —

                           By proceeding on the assumption that the interest of the European Union does not justify the bringing of proceedings on the basis of the applicants’ complaint, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment;

                           —

                           By rejecting the applicants’ complaint and refusing to bring proceedings on the basis of the unfounded assumption that the conditions governing the finding of a breach of Article 101 TFEU set out in the judgment of the Court of 17 July 1998 in Case T-111/96 ITT Promedia v. Commission are not applicable in the case of abuse of criminal or administrative procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-151/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 28 March 2011 — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Jürgen Dörschel
   (Case C-151/11)
   2011/C 204/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Defendant: Jürgen Dörschel

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a passenger have a right to payment of compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where the flight, following its departure according to schedule, is discontinued and the aircraft, before arriving at the airport of destination, returns to the airport of departure and subsequently takes off again with a delay which is relevant for payment of compensation?

               2.

               Is there a discontinuance in the case where, after the aircraft doors have been closed, the journey is not continued? From what point is there a discontinuance of the start, rather than a delayed start?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-433/12: Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/39

         Action brought on 28 September 2012 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)
   (Case T-433/12)
   2012/C 366/78
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by D. Fissl, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2012 in Case R 1693/2011-1;

               —

               Annul OHIM’s rejection of Community trade mark application No 9 439 613;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the positional mark with which protection is claimed for a gleaming or matt, round metal button fastened to the middle section of the ear of a soft toy for goods in Class 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 439 613

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-417/07: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Lodato Gennaro & C. v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/66

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 — Lodato Gennaro & C. v Commission
   (Case T-417/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/119)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-196/06: Action brought on 19 July 2006 — Edison v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/44

         Action brought on 19 July 2006 — Edison v Commission
   (Case T-196/06)
   (2006/C 212/75)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Edison S.p.A. (represented by: Mario Siragusa, Roberto Casati, Matteo Beretta, Pietro Merlino and Eugenio Bruti Liberati, lawyers,)

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

               —

               Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in so far as it affects the applicant.

               —

               In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Edison by the contested decision.

               —

               The Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in this case is the same as in Case T-185/06 L'air Liquide v Commission. That decision held the applicant jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by Ausimont for the whole duration of its participation in the cartel, and fined it EUR 58 125 000 for that infringement, EUR 25 619 000 of which jointly and severally with Solvay Solexis S.p.A.. That latter company is currently controlled by Solvay SA/NV, but, at the time of the infringement, under the name of Ausimont S.p.A., it was indirectly controlled by Montedison (now Edison).
   In support of its arguments, the applicant argues:

               —

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements, especially of the principle that both sides should be heard and of the rights of the defence; infringement of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, for using for the first time in the decision, in support of its accusations, the fact that, for a large part of the infringement period, the managing director of Ausimont was also a board member of Montecatini, i.e. the intermediate company entirely controlled by Montedison (now Edison), which held the entire company capital of Ausimont.

               —

               Infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty by wrongly imputing to the applicant the infringement of the competition rules committed by Ausimont. First, the Commission erred in concluding that entire ownership of the capital of an undertaking is sufficient to give rise to the presumption that the controlling company exercises a determining influence on the controlled company, so that the former may be regarded as jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by the latter. Secondly, the applicant argues that the contested decision is self-contradictory and insufficient in its reasoning, and that Article 81 of the EC Treaty has been infringed in relation to the conclusion that, in this case, there were ‘other elements’ present which indicated that Ausimont was not an autonomous entity capable of deciding its own commercial strategy.

         The applicant also claims that there has been infringement of the duty to state reasons, in that the Commission failed to consider all the documentary proofs and factual circumstances adduced by Edison in support of the contention that Ausimont was independent in determining its own commercial policies.


title: Case F-25/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Ider and Others v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/34

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Ider and Others v Commission
   (Case F-25/06)
   (2006/C 108/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Béatrice Ider and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November 2005 rejecting the applicants' complaints of 26 July 2005 criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and also criticising Article 8 of the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the 'General implementing provisions for the transitional measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels' and Annexes I and II to that decision;

               —

               also, in so far as necessary, annul the decisions against which the abovementioned complaints were directed;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are currently contract staff working in the day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels, were already performing the same work under employment contracts subject to Belgian law before they were appointed as contract staff. They dispute their grading and their remuneration fixed by the defendant on their appointment as contract staff.
   In the first plea in law raised in their application, the applicants submit that pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement concluded on 22 January 2002 between the Commission and the delegation of the staff of the day nurseries and kindergartens on contracts governed by Belgian law, they should have been given a more advantageous grading. Their grading in function group I, at grade I, constitutes a manifest error of assessment and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since they were regarded as inexperienced novices when they had a significant length of service.
   In the second plea in law, the applicants claim infringement of Article 2(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), of the abovementioned Memorandum of Agreement, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the general principles applicable in social security matters. In particular, calculation of the remuneration to be guaranteed to the applicants should not have taken child allowances into account.


title: Case F-56/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/70

         Action brought on 18 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-56/14)
   2014/C 253/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the two proposed calculations of the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which apply the new GIPs on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of 20 September 2013 making two proposed calculations of annuities to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union concerning application No 1 A112-BE-ONP and application No 2 BE-CPIE-1 (former reference), confirmed by the rejection decision of the Appointing Authority sent on 20 March 2014;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-524/13: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/45

         Order of the General Court of 25 November 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)
   (Case T-524/13) (1)

   2014/C 45/84
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-394/06: Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/28

         Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-394/06)
   (2006/C 294/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to submit, before 1 July 2005, an annual national report on the promotion of biofuels including all the information laid down in Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for submitting the annual national report on the promotion of biofuels referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC expired on 1 July 2005.
   The Italian Republic maintains that it sent to the Commission a report in accordance with the requirements of the directive on 14 July 2006.
   In the opinion of the Commission, however, that report is incomplete because it does not make any reference to the national resources allocated to the production of biomass for energy uses other than transport, as laid down in the second indent of Article 4(1) of the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 123 of 17.5.2003, p. 42.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 21 March 2002 in Case C-451/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien): Cura Anlagen GmbH v Auto Service Leasing GmbH (ASL) (Vehicle leasing — Prohibition on using in a Member State for longer than a certain time a vehicle registered in another Member State — Obligations to register the vehicle and to pay a consumption tax in the Member State of use — Obligation to insure with an insurer authorised in the Member State of use — Obligation to undergo roadworthiness testing — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Justifications)

text:
C 118/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18.5.2002
No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230,
p. 6), and as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/
86 of 11 December 1986 (OJ 1986 L 355, p. 5), the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,                                              21 March 2002
F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathe-
let and V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                 in Case C-451/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                 the Handelsgericht Wien): Cura Anlagen GmbH v Auto
19 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                                       Service Leasing GmbH (ASL) (1)
                                                                           (Vehicle leasing — Prohibition on using in a Member State
                                                                           for longer than a certain time a vehicle registered in another
Examination of the questions referred has not disclosed any factor of      Member State — Obligations to register the vehicle and to
such a kind as to affect the validity:                                     pay a consumption tax in the Member State of use —
                                                                           Obligation to insure with an insurer authorised in the
                                                                           Member State of use — Obligation to undergo roadworthi-
                                                                           ness testing — Restrictions on the freedom to provide
—     of Article 14c(1)(b) of and Annex VII to Regulation No 1408/                               services — Justifications)
      71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
      security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
      and to members of their families moving within the Community,                                    (2002/C 118/08)
      as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     of Article 14(b) of and Annex VII to that regulation, as
      amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3811/86 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      11 December 1986.                                                                         in the European Court Reports)
However, it is, where appropriate, for the national court hearing          In Case C-451/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
disputes in the context of the application of that provision, first, to    EC by the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) for a preliminary
ascertain that the legislation of the States concerned applied in that     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
context is applied in accordance with Articles 48 and 52 of the            Cura Anlagen GmbH and Auto Service Leasing GmbH (ASL),
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), and in            on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC and Article 28
particular that the national legislation whose conditions for appli-       EC,the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr,
cation are at issue does afford social security cover for the person       President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of
concerned, and, second, to determine whether that provision should,        the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
exceptionally, be disapplied at the request of the worker concerned        (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
where it would cause him to lose a social security advantage which he      Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
originally enjoyed under a social security convention in force between     given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
two or more Member States.
                                                                           The provisions of the EC Treaty on the freedom to provide services
                                                                           (Articles 49 EC to 55 EC) preclude legislation of a Member State,
                                                                           such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring an
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.                                                undertaking established in that Member State which takes a lease of
                                                                           a vehicle registered in another Member State to register it in the first
                                                                           Member State in order to be able to use it there beyond a period that
                                                                           is so short, in this case three days, that it makes it impossible or
                                                                           excessively difficult to comply with the requirements imposed. The
                                                                           same provisions of the Treaty preclude legislation of a Member State,
                                                                           such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring an
                                                                           undertaking established in that Member State which takes a lease of
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 118/7
a vehicle registered in another Member State to register in the first                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Member State and imposing on it one or more of the following
conditions:
                                                                                19 March 2002
—    a requirement that the person in whose name the vehicle is             in Case C-476/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
     registered in the Member State of use reside or have a place of        the Centrale Raad van Beroep): H. Lommers v Minister
     business there, in so far as it obliges a leasing undertaking                    van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1)
     either to have a principal place of business in that Member
     State or to accept registration of the vehicle in the name of the
     lessee and the consequent limitation of its rights over the vehicle;
                                                                            (Social policy — Equal treatment of men and women —
                                                                            Derogations — Measures to promote equality of opportunity
                                                                            between men and women — Subsidised nursery places made
                                                                            available by a Ministry to its staff — Places reserved only
                                                                            for children of female officials, save in cases of emergency,
—    a requirement to insure the vehicle with an authorised insurer                          to be determined by the employer)
     in the Member State of use, if that requirement implies that the
     insurer must have its principal place of business in that Member
     State, as the home State within the meaning of the non-life
     insurance directives, and have ‘official authorisation’ there;                                     (2002/C 118/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—    a requirement of a roadworthiness test when the vehicle has
     already undergone such testing in the Member State where the           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     leasing company is established, save where that requirement is                              in the European Court Reports)
     aimed at verifying that the vehicle satisfies the conditions
     imposed on vehicles registered in the Member State of use that
     are not covered by the tests carried out in the Member State
     where the leasing company is established and/or, if the vehicle
     has in the meantime been used on the public highway, that its
     condition has not deteriorated since it was tested in that latter
     Member State, provided similar testing is imposed where a              In Case C-476/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
     vehicle previously tested in the Member State of use is presented      EC by the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) for a
     for registration in that State;                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                            court between H. Lommers and Minister van Landbouw,
                                                                            Natuurbeheer en Visserij, on the interpretation of Article 2(1)
                                                                            and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976
                                                                            on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                                                                            men and women as regards access to employment, vocational
—    payment, in the Member State of use, of a consumption tax the          training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976
     amount of which is not proportionate to the duration of the            L 39, p. 40), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
     registration of the vehicle in that State.                             President, P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of
                                                                            Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                            given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                    Article 2(1) and (4) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
                                                                            1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                                                                            men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training
                                                                            and promotion, and working conditions does not preclude a scheme
                                                                            set up by a Minister to tackle extensive under-representation of
                                                                            women within his Ministry under which, in a context characterised
                                                                            by a proven insufficiency of proper, affordable care facilities, a limited
                                                                            number of subsidised nursery places made available by the Ministry
                                                                            to its staff is reserved for female officials alone whilst male officials
                                                                            may have access to them only in cases of emergency, to be determined


title: Case C-370/03: Action brought on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of
that court dated 28 July 2003, in the case of Fulcrum
Electronics Ltd (in Liquidation) against Commissioners                   The abovementioned DEI power station unquestionably falls
                      of Customs and Excise                              within the category of industrial plants listed in Annex I to
                                                                         Directive 84/360 and is an ‘existing plant’ within the meaning
                          (Case C-355/03)                                of Article 2(3) of that directive. Therefore, the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic is obliged, under Article 13 of the directive, to imple-
                          (2003/C 251/13)                                ment a policy and strategy including appropriate measures for
                                                                         the adaptation of that plant to the best available technology. In
                                                                         accordance with Article 16 of the directive, that obligation has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   existed since 30 June 1987, but the Hellenic Republic has not
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    yet determined appropriate policies and strategies.
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 28 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 August
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fulcrum                    (1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.
Electronics Ltd (in Liquidation) against Commissioners of
Customs and Excise on the questions which are identical to
those in Case C-354/03 (1).
(1) See page 6 of this Official Journal.                                 Action brought on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-370/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 251/15)
Action brought on 22 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                          (Case C-364/03)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic
                          (2003/C 251/14)                                Republic, represented by G. Kanellopoulos, a Member of the
                                                                         State Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                         at the Greek Embassy, 27 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                         The applicant asks the Court to:
Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and
M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision 2003/481/EC in so far as
                                                                               concerns the particular chapter concerning the charging
                                                                               to the budget of the Member State rather than to the
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                               EAGGF Guarantee Section the sum not recoverable by the
                                                                               Greek authorities of DR 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884,90);
—     declare that, by failing to determine policies and strategies
      for the gradual adaptation of the steam-turbine and gas-           —     order that the financial consequences of the non-recovery
      turbine units of the DEI (Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou;                of the above sum should be borne by the Community.
      State Electricity Undertaking) power station at
      Linoperamata, Crete, to the best available technology,
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      under Article 13 of Council Directive 84/360/EEC (1) of
      28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from
      industrial plants;
                                                                         —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
                                                                               since Greece was not invited by the Commission to a
                                                                               discussion in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            No 1663/96;
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/8               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
—     Infringement/misapplication of Article 8(2) of Regulation        Appeal brought on 10 September 2003 by Rafael Pérez
      No 729/70 since there was an error as to the facts in so         Escolar against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by
      far as misassessment of irregularities or negligence is          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      concerned;                                                       (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01
                                                                       between Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
—     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
      since there is an insufficient statement of reasons                                      (Case C-379/03 P)
      (Article 253 EC).
                                                                                (2003/C 251/17)
                                                                       An appeal against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01 between
                                                                       Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission                   European Communities on 10 September 2003 by Rafael
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                    Pérez Escolar represented by Fernando Moreno Pardo.
                         of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-375/03)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/16)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                    —     Accept the application, its copies and annexes, allow the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          present appeal subject to the relevant procedure and set
Communities on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of                         aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
the European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as                  2003, by declaring admissible the action for failure to act
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            brought before the Court of First Instance, and in the
                                                                             event that it considers it appropriate, hear and decide the
                                                                             case itself by declaring that the Commission, by failing to
                                                                             adopt any decision whatsoever on the complaint submit-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       ted by the appellant's representatives on 23 February
the Court should:                                                            1999 on the State aid granted by the Banco Español de
                                                                             Credito S.A. and Banco Santander S.A., had failed to act;
1.   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of            —     Alternatively, in the event that the Court does not con-
     the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside                    sider it appropriate to hear and determine the case itself,
     inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles                 the Court should refer the case back to the Court of First
     circulating in the Community (1) and, in any event, by                  Instance in order for it to hear and determine the sub-
     failing to communicate them to the Commission,                          stance of the case;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;
                                                                       —     In any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities to pay all the costs arising from the pro-
2.   order Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                      ceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired
on 10 August 2002.
                                                                       The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
                                                                       applicant did not have locus standi to bring an action for failure
                                                                       to act against the Commission for not adopting any decision
(1) OJ L 203 of 10.08.2000, p. 1.                                      whatever on the complaint submitted. The Court of First
                                                                       Instance held that the criteria for locus standi for the purposes
                                                                       of an action for failure to act under Article 232 EC are the


title: Case T-204/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2007 — Indorata-Serviços e Gestão v OHIM (HAIRTRANSFER) ( Community trade mark — Application for Community trade mark HAIRTRANSFER — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 )

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2007 — Indorata-Serviços e Gestão v OHIM (HAIRTRANSFER)
   (Case T-204/04) (1)

   (‘Community trade mark - Application for Community trade mark HAIRTRANSFER - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94’)
   (2007/C 82/70)
   Language of the Case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by T. Wallentin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by J. Weberndörfer, agent)
   Subject-matter
   Appeal against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 1 April 2004 (Case R 435/2003-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark HAIRTRANSFER as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Indorata-Serviços e Gestão, Lda is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  JO C 217 du 28.8.2004.


title: Case T-320/14: Action brought on 5 May 2014  — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two vertical lines)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/38

         Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two vertical lines)
   (Case T-320/14)
   2014/C 212/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 24 February 2014 in Case R 1577/2013-4;

               —

               uphold the opposition and reject the application for registration of the Community trade mark No 1 0 2 14  773 lodged on 24 August 2011 by the company Mayfield Trading Ltd, for the goods in Class 3 ‘Perfumery goods; depilatory wax; essential oils; soaps; cosmetics; cosmetic creams; cosmetics kits (filled); depilatories; depilatory water; depilatory gel; hair lotions; dentifrices’ and the services in Classes 35 ‘Sale of soaps, perfumery, creams, essential oils, cosmetics, depilatory waxes, depilatory water, depilatory gel and other related goods’ and 44 ‘Hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; hair removal and beauty treatment’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Mayfield Trading Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing two vertical lines for goods and services in Classes 3, 35 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 14  773

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international figurative mark representing a vertical line for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 75 and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-209/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn by order of that court of 22 April 1999 in the case of Birgit Frings v Blendermann GmbH

text:
C 204/34               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
1. May Article 4, in conjunction with Article 1, of Council            Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
     Regulation No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the             European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                         Luxembourg
     transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) be
     interpreted as permitting the provision of island cabotage                                 (Case C-210/99)
     services by undertakings covering regular shipping lines
     to be made subject to obtaining prior administrative
     authorisation?                                                                             (1999/C 204/69)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
2. If so, may the grant and continuation of such administrat-          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
     ive authorisation be made subject to the satisfaction of          ties on l June 1999 by the Commission of the European
     conditions such as fulfilment of fiscal and social security       Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
     obligations, distinct from those set out in Article 4(2) of       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     the Regulation?                                                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
3. May Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3577/92 be interpreted
     as permitting, in relation to one line or maritime route,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     public service obligations to be imposed on some shipping
     companies while, at the same time, public service contracts,      1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
     within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Regulation, are              laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     concluded with others, in order to ensure regular services             to comply with Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June
     to, from or between islands?                                           1995 on the licensing of railway undertakings (1), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that directive; and
(1) OJ No L 364 of 12 December.1992, p. 7.
                                                                       2. Order the Grand Duchy of̀ Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
                                                                       Article 16(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70.
                                                                       (2) See this OJ p. 28.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-
richt Bonn by order of that court of 22 April 1999 in the
          case of Birgit Frings v Blendermann GmbH
                         (Case C-209/99)
                                                                       Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                         (1999/C 204/68)                                                          Luxembourg
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                          (Case C-211/99)
European Communities by an order of the Third Chamber of
the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Labour Court, Bonn) of 22 April                                        (1999/C 204/70)
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 1 June
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Birgit Frings v
Blendermann GmbH on the following question:                            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 1 June 1999 by the Commission of the European
Is there a breach of the prohibition under European law of             Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
indirect discrimination on grounds of sex if national appli-           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
cation of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on Protection                the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its legal Service,
against Dismissal) has the result that, where the amount of            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
work required is reduced for operational reasons, if the
employer has made a business decision to maintain the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
full-time posts occupied, then because of lack of comparability
no selection on social grounds takes place between part-time           1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate the
and full-time employees, even though the part-time employee                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
is prepared to accept a full-time post?                                     to comply with Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June
                                                                            1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
                                                                            and the charging of infrastructure fees (1), the Grand Duchy
                                                                            of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that directive; and


title: Case C-79/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Systeme Helmholz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg (Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 14(1)(b) — Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation — Use of an aircraft for other than commercial purposes — Scope)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Systeme Helmholz GmbH v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg
   (Case C-79/10) (1)

   (Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(b) - Exemption of energy products used as fuel for the purpose of air navigation - Use of an aircraft for other than commercial purposes - Scope)
   2012/C 32/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Systeme Helmholz GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Nürnberg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 11(3), 14(1)(b) and 15(1)(j) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Scope of the exemption from taxation provided for in respect of energy products supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of air navigation — National legislation restricting that exemption to air navigation by air carriers — Flights for business and private purposes made using an aircraft belonging to an undertaking which is not an air carrier

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 14(1)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that the tax exemption on fuel used for the purpose of air navigation, provided for under that provision, cannot apply in the case of a company, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, which, in order to develop its business, uses its own aircraft to transport members of its staff to clients or to trade fairs, in so far as that travel is not directly used for the supply, by that company, of air services for consideration.

               2.

               Article 15(1)(j) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that the fuel used for the purpose of flights to and from an aircraft maintenance facility does not fall within the scope of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-666/14: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS) (Community trade mark — Period for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Notification of the Board of Appeal’s decision by fax machine — Receipt of the fax — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/34

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)
   (Case T-666/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Period for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Notification of the Board of Appeal’s decision by fax machine - Receipt of the fax - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1530/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GREEN BEANS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Monster Energy Company shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case T-303/14: Action brought on 29 April 2014  — Polyblend v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/51

         Action brought on 29 April 2014 — Polyblend v Commission
   (Case T-303/14)
   2014/C 223/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Polyblend GmbH (Bad Sobernheim, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Case T-664/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PETCO — Earlier Community figurative mark PETCO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Suspension of the administrative proceedings — Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Plea which does not support the form of order sought — Prohibition on ruling ultra petita — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2015 — Petco Animal Supplies Stores v OHIM — Gutiérrez Ariza (PETCO)
   (Case T-664/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PETCO - Earlier Community figurative mark PETCO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Rule 20(7)(c) and Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Plea which does not support the form of order sought - Prohibition on ruling ultra petita - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 406/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza (Málaga, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2013 (Case R 347/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza and Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case T-286/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Tankstation en Automobielbedrijf Tromp v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Tankstation en Automobielbedrijf Tromp v Commission
   (Case T-286/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/59)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-177/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2015 — Nelsons GmbH v Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2015 — Nelsons GmbH v Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd
   (Case C-177/15)
   (2015/C 213/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Nelsons GmbH

      Respondents in the appeal on a point of law: Ayonnax Nutripharm GmbH, Bachblütentreff Ltd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are liquids with an alcohol content of 27 % by volume, which are described as spirit drinks and are sold through pharmacies in 10 ml or 20 ml dropper bottles or as sprays, beverages containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1), where, according to the dosage instructions given on the packaging,

                           (a)

                           four drops of the liquid are to be added to a glass of water and drunk at intervals over the course of the day or four drops are to be taken undiluted, as required,

                           (b)

                           two sprays of the liquid sold in spray form are to be applied to the tongue?

               2.

               If Questions 1(a) and 1(b) are to be answered in the negative:
               Must evidence within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 be present also in the case of references to general, non-specific benefits within the meaning of Article 10(3) of that regulation?

               3.

               Does the provision set out in the first half of the sentence contained in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 apply in the case where, prior to 1 January 2005, the product concerned was marketed under its brand name not as a foodstuff but as a medicinal product?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012 (OJ 2012 L 310, p. 36).


title: Case F-21/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pirri v Commission (Civil Service — Person claiming the status of official or other servant of the European Union — Action — Manifest inadmissibility — failure to observe the pre-contentious procedure)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — Pirri v Commission
   (Case F-21/11)
   (Civil Service - Person claiming the status of official or other servant of the European Union - Action - Manifest inadmissibility - failure to observe the pre-contentious procedure)
   2012/C 138/71
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Gerado Pirri (Travedona Monate, Italy) (represented by: S. Costantino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   The applicant’s claim for status of official or other servant of the European Union

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Pirri is ordered to bear his own costs.


title: Case C-152/14: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Stabilisation procedure — Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition — Determination of length of service — Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/26

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others
   (Case C-152/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Stabilisation procedure - Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition - Determination of length of service - Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts - Principle of non-discrimination))
   2014/C 409/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

      Defendant: Antonella Bertazzi, Annalise Colombo, Maria Valeria Contin, Angela Filippina Marasco, Guido Guissani, Lucia Lizzi and Fortuna Peranio

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely excludes periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority from being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, where the duties performed under fixed-term contracts are the same as those performed by a career civil servant in the same category for that authority, unless that exclusion is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4), this being a matter for the referring court to determine. The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of an employment relationship or contract for a fixed term does not constitute such an objective ground.

               2.

               The objective of preventing reverse discrimination against career civil servants recruited after passing a general competition cannot constitute an ‘objective ground’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4) of the framework agreement where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the provision of national law at issue completely and in all circumstances excludes all periods of service completed by workers under fixed-term employment contracts from being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of those workers upon their recruitment on a permanent basis and, thus, their level of remuneration.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-398/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of  2 November 2005  in AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 November 2005 in AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
   (Case C-398/05)
   (2006/C 22/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf of 2 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH and Hauptzollamt Aachen on the following question:
   Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 (1) of 12 July 1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of Korea invalid in so far as it provides that countervailing duty under subheading 7223 00 19 of the Combined Nomenclature is to be imposed on wire manufactured by Venus Wire Industries Ltd, Mumbai, India.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 189, p. 1.