title: Case T-128/11: Action brought on 23 February 2011 — LG Display and LG Display Taiwan v Commission

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/19

         Action brought on 23 February 2011 — LG Display and LG Display Taiwan v Commission
   (Case T-128/11)
   2011/C 130/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: LG Display Co. Ltd (Seoul, Korea) and LG Display Taiwan (Taiwan, Republic of China) (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               partially annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed;

               —

               order the Commission to pay legal and others costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               take any other measure that the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek partial annulment of Commission decision C(2010)8761 final of 8 December 2010 in Case COMP/39.309 — LCD — Liquid Crystal Displays, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating in a single and continuous agreement and concerted practice in the sector of Liquid Crystal Display panels for TV, notebook and monitor applications, insofar as the decision imposes the fine on the applicants.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly and unjustifiably included LG Display’s sales to its parent companies in the value of sales for the calculation of the fines and violated due process principles such as the rights of defence. In this regard, they submit that:

                           —

                           first, the Commission’s allegation that the infringement related to sales to LG Display’s parents was not a part of the Statement of Objections and the discrepancies between the Statement of Objections and the contested decision violates the applicants’ right to be heard;

                           —

                           second, the Commission misapplied the Fining Guidelines by including LG Display’s sales to its parents in the fine calculation;

                           —

                           third, the Commission’s characterization of the affected sales as ‘direct EEA sales’ and ‘direct EEA sales through transformed products’ violates the principle of equal treatment.

         The applicants contend that any fine imposed on LG Display should only be based on ‘free market’ sales that were made to non-related entities, as only these sales may have been affected by the infringement.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly denied LG Display immunity from fines for 2005 and thus violated the 2002 Leniency Notice. In this regard the applicants submit that:

                           —

                           first, LG Display’s access to the case file was seriously hindered by procedural inadequacies;

                           —

                           second, LG Display satisfied the requirements for partial immunity under the applicable 2002 Leniency Notice;

                           —

                           third, the Commission’s rejection of LG Display’s application is not reasoned, rests on several errors in law and is erroneous in fact.

         The applicants contend that LG Display’s fine should therefore reflect partial immunity for 2005.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that despite the fact that LG Display provided exceptional assistance to the Commission that went well beyond its obligations under the 2002 Leniency Notice the Commission refused to grant additional reduction of the fine for at least 10 % for such cooperation and thus violated the Leniency Notice.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging that the Commission’s exclusion of the Japanese suppliers of LCD from the contested decision, even though two of them admitted their participation in the same single and continuous infringement, violates the principle of legal certainty, subjects LG Display to significant risk of double jeopardy and violates the principle of proportionality.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/53

         Action brought on 12 February 2004 by Luis Escobar Guerrero against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-52/04)
   (2004/C 94/143)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 February 2004 by Luis Escobar Guerrero, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision to promote the applicant to Grade A5 for the promotion year 2002 in so far as the date on which it takes effect is fixed at 1 May 2003;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following the Commission's decision to promote him to Grade A5, the applicant withdrew his action in Case T-92/03 against the decision not to promote him during the 2002 promotion procedure. In the present case, the applicant claims that the Commission was required to promote him to Grade A5 with effect from 1 April 2002 on the same terms as the other officials promoted to that grade in the 2002 promotion procedure.
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, a breach of the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects and also failure to implement in good faith the Commission's decision to deal favourably with the complaint forming the subject-matter of Case T-92/03.


title: Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and Vals SA against the Council of the European Union (Case T-15/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 94/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA, having
                                                                      its registered office at Saint Jacut du Mene ( France), and
The applicants, French companies producing veal for                   Vals SA, having its registered office in Champagne
human consumption, contest Council Regulation ( EC )                  ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( EEC ) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                   Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
market in beef and veal ( J ), in particular Article 1 (4 )
thereof, in as much as it requires the Member States to               The applicants claim that the Court should:
pay an early marketing premium the conditions and
methods of calculation of which have caused them serious
                                                                      — annul Regulation (EC ) No 2222/96 adopted on
damage .                                                                   18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                           institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
They state in that regard that, as a result of the fact that
                                                                           the act being separable from its other provisions,
Article 1 (4 ) provides, in the implementation of the said
premium, for the uniform application of a 15% reduction
in the slaughter weight in each country, based on a                   — order the Council to pay the costs .
reference parameter deriving from statistics drawn up for
1995 , the carcase premium reference figure obtainable by             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the applicants amounts to 108 kg, which weight is totally
incompatible with the normal marketing of such a carcase,             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
since the carcase weight produced prior to that measure               those relied on in Case T- 14/97 Sofivo and Others v.
was 127 kg.                                                           Council .
They further state that,
at the same time, their competitors in the Netherlands,
which is the second largest producer in Europe and
exports 95% of its production, enjoy the highest                      Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container
reference, enabling them to obtain the premium on the                 Line AB and others against the Commission of the
basis of a carcase weight of 138 kg, which places them in                                 European Communities
a particularly favourable competitive position in the
                                                                                Case T-18/97)
French market. Since the carcase premium weight in that
country ( less than 138 kg) is very close to that for which                                     ( 97/C 94/45 )
demand exists in the French market, producers established
there are able to produce calves of the type sought after in                          (Language of the case: English)
the French market and to receive the premium of ECU 65
per carcase, resulting, in their view, in total disparity             An action against the Commission of the European
between both prices and products. Furthermore, the speed              Communities was brought before the Court of First
with which the measure has been introduced interferes
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 27 January
with the production previously planned, relating to                   1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB, represented by John
periods of between 22 and 24 weeks, whereas the                       Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Shaun Goodman, with
reference resulting in the premium weight of 108 kg                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
brings the fattening period down to between 15 and 17                 Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe .
weeks .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should
In support of their claims, the applicant companies plead
a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, as well
as the existence, in the present case, of an anti-competitive         — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 3414 of
situation, contrary to the second subparagraph of                          26 November 1996 relating to the Trans-Atlantic
Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                                            Conference Agreement,
(') OJ No L 296 , 21 . 11 . 1996 , p. 50 .                            — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      The applicants are 16 of the 17 liner shipping operators
                                                                      which are party to the Trans-Atlantic Conference
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and                   Agreement, pursuant to which they together provide
     Vals SA against the Council of the European Union                westbound and eastbound containerized liner services
                          (Case T-15/97)                              across the Atlantic Ocean for the carriage of cargo
                            ( 97/C 94/44 )                            between inland points and ports in Northern Europe and
                                                                      the United States of America .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
An action against the Council of the European Union was               Commission decision, in which the Commission withdrew
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            the applicants' immunity from fines conferred by


title: Case T-567/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014  — Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark KAATSU — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rights of the defence — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2014 — Kaatsu Japan v OHIM (KAATSU)
   (Case T-567/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark KAATSU - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rights of the defence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2014/C 462/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 October 2012 (Case R 435/2012-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign KAATSU as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kaatsu Japan Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-301/17: Action brought on 23 May 2017 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/40

         Action brought on 23 May 2017 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-301/17)
   (2017/C 239/51)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Romania

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 258 TFEU, that, having failed to comply, as regards 68 landfill sites, with the obligation to adopt all necessary measures to close down as soon as possible, under Articles 7(g) and 13 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 29 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8, a permit to continue to operate, Romania is in breach of its obligations under Article 14(b) in conjunction with Article 13 of that directive;

               —

               order Romania to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The action brought by the European Commission against Romania concerns the latter’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(b) in conjunction with Article 13 of Directive 1999/31/EC, in so far as concerns 68 landfill sites which were not granted, in accordance with Article 8, a permit to continue to operate and, accordingly, should have been closed, in accordance with Articles 7(g) and 13 of that directive.
   The Commission maintains that Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC lays down transitional derogating rules for landfill sites which had been granted a permit or were already in operation at the time of transposition of the directive, with a view to ensuring that, by 16 July 2009 at the latest, those sites complied with the new environmental requirements laid down in Article 8 of that directive. Under Article 14(b), following the presentation of the conditioning plan, the competent authorities are to take a definite decision on whether operations may continue on the basis of the said conditioning plan and the directive. Member States are to take the necessary measures required to close down as soon as possible, in accordance with Articles 7(g) and 13, sites which have not been granted, in accordance with Article 8, a permit to continue to operate.
   Article 13 provides that a landfill, or part of it, may be considered definitively closed only after the competent authority has carried out a final on-site inspection, has assessed all the reports submitted by the operator and has communicated to the operator its approval for the closure.
   As regards the 68 landfill sites specified in the application, the Commission considers that Romania has failed to provide information that would enable it to confirm that, not only had those landfill sites ceased to operate, but also the process for their closure had, in fact, been completed in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 1999/31/EC. In that regard, the Commission maintains that Romania, in justifying the failure to meet the obligations arising under the directive, cannot rely on purely domestic situations, such as the bankruptcy of operators, disputes relating to property law, the conduct of administrative proceedings or the responsibility of local authorities.
   The time-limit for the transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 16 July 2009.


No C 269/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-5/96 ( 1 )                       Removal from the register of Case C-413/93 ( )
                           ( 96/C 269/46 )                                                        ( 96/C 269/50 )
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Court of                By order of 19 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-5/96 : Commission of the                   from the register of Case C-413/93 ( Request for a
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                             preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di
                                                                       Trapani ): Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta .
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 300 , 6 . 11 . 1993 .
      Removal from the register of Case C-387/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 269/47 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-121 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/51 )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
register of Case C-387/95 : Commission of the European                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Communities v. Ireland .                                               from the register of Case C-121 /94 ( Request for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht ): Domingo
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-394/95 (')
                            ( 96/C 269/48 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-385/95 ( )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/52 )
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-394/95 : Commission of the European                 By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Communities v. Ireland .                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-385/95 : Commission of the
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/96 ( )
                            ( 96/C 269/49 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/95 ( )
 By order of 5 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/53 )
 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-40/96 : Commission of the European                   By order of 9 July 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
 Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/95 : Commission of the European
 (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                       Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 2013 in Case E-7/13 — Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State (Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information — Principles governing charging — Transparency — Notion of cost — Self-financing requirements)

text:
               19.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/33

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 16 December 2013
   in Case E-7/13
   Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State
   (Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information — Principles governing charging — Transparency — Notion of cost — Self-financing requirements)
   (2015/C 92/07)
   In Case E-7/13, Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/98/EC require that, when charges are made for the re-use of public sector information, a substantive examination must have been undertaken at the time when the charge is fixed. The examination must show that the total income from such charges does not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents, plus a reasonable return on investment. If the factors relevant to performing a calculation are uncertain, an estimate must at least be made. However, the calculation basis for the charges need only be made available upon request. This applies irrespective of whether the charge is set in legislation, by the relevant public authority or by other means.

               2.

               When the cost pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, account may be taken of the cost incurred by a public sector body in connection with the initial collection and production of the documents in question. In such case, any income accrued in that respect, for example fees or taxes such as stamp duties, which reduce or offset that cost, must also be taken into account.

               3.

               Self-financing requirements for public sector bodies may be taken into account when determining the cost under Article 6 of the Directive. This applies insofar as only cost elements, together with a reasonable return on investment, that are related to the document processing necessary for re-use set out in Article 6 are taken into account.


title: Case C-544/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 October 2016 — Marcandi Limited, trading as ‘Madbid’ v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 October 2016 — Marcandi Limited, trading as ‘Madbid’ v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-544/16)
   (2017/C 014/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marcandi Limited, trading as ‘Madbid’

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               On the correct interpretation of articles 2(1), 24, 62, 63, 65, and 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings:

                           a)

                           is the issue of Credits to users, by Madbid, in return for a money payment:

                                       i.

                                       a ‘preliminary transaction’ outside the scope of article 2(1), of the sort identified by the Court in MacDonald Resorts Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (C-270/09) [2010] ECR I-13179 ECLI:EU:C:2010:780, at paragraphs 23-42; or

                                       ii.

                                       a supply of services by Madbid within the meaning of article 2(1)(c), namely the grant of a right to participate in online auctions;

                           b)

                           if the grant of a right to participate in online auctions is a supply of services by Madbid, then is it a supply made ‘for consideration’ within the meaning of article 2(1)(c), namely the payment for it (i.e. the money received by Madbid from a user in return for Credits);

                           c)

                           is the answer to (b) different if the payment for the Credits also serves as an entitlement for the user to acquire goods to the same value in the event of the user not succeeding in the auction;

                           d)

                           if Madbid does not make a supply of services for consideration when it issues Credits to its users in return for a money payment, does it make such a supply at any other time;

                     and what principles should be applied in determining the answer to those questions?

               2.

               On the correct interpretation of articles 2(1), 14, 62, 63, 65, 73 and 79(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax what, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is the consideration obtained by Madbid in return for the supplies of goods that it makes to users, for the purposes of articles 2(1)(a) and 73? In particular, and taking into account the answer to Question 1:

                           a)

                           is the money paid by a user to Madbid for Credits a ‘payment…on account’ for a supply of goods within the scope of article 65, so that VAT is ‘chargeable’ on receipt of that payment, and such that the payment received by Madbid from the user is consideration for a supply of goods;

                           b)

                           if a user buys goods through the Buy Now or Earned Discount features, is the value of Credits used in placing bids in auctions and, where the bid is unsuccessful, has the effect of generating Earned Discount or reducing the Buy Now price:

                                       i.

                                       a ‘price discount’ within the meaning of article 79(b), such that the consideration for Madbid's supply of the goods is the money actually paid to Madbid by the user at the time of purchasing the goods and no more; or

                                       ii.

                                       part of the consideration for the supply of goods, such that the consideration for Madbid's supply of goods includes both the money paid to Madbid by the user at the time of purchasing the goods and the money paid by the user for Credits used in placing unsuccessful bids in auctions;

                           c)

                           if a user exercises the right to buy goods after winning an online auction, is the consideration for the supply of those goods the stated auction winning price (plus shipping and handling charges) and no more, or is the value of the Credits that the winner used to bid in that auction also part of the consideration for the supply of those goods by Madbid to the user;

                     or what principles should be applied in determining the answer to those questions?

               3.

               Where two Member States treat a transaction differently for the purposes of VAT, to what extent should the courts of one of those Member States take into account, when interpreting the relevant provisions of EU law and national law, the desirability of avoiding:

                           a)

                           double taxation of the transaction; and/or

                           b)

                           non-taxation of the transaction;

                     and what bearing does the principle of fiscal neutrality have on this question?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

      OJ L 347, p. 1


title: Case T-303/06: Action brought on 6 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (Uniweb)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/60

         Action brought on 6 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (Uniweb)
   (Case T-303/06)
   (2006/C 326/130)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: UniCredito Italiano S.p.A. (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006, adopted in joined proceedings R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B490971 concerning Community trade mark application No 2.236.164.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘UNIWEB’ (application for registration No 2.236.164), for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH, previously Union Investment Gesellschaft GmbH.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’ (No 991.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and German figurative mark ‘UNIZINS’ (No 2.016.954), to distinguish capital investments, as referred to in Class 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld, in so far as a likelihood of confusion is recognised ‘only as regards services found to be similar’.

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

      Pleas in law: The contested decision wrongly applied the theory of increased protection for so-called marks in a series, developed by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 concerning the trade mark ‘Bainbridge’, because the two necessary conditions are not fulfilled: (a) the element common to the series of earlier marks must be distinctive; and (b) the earlier marks must be used and understood by the relevant public as signifying a multiplicity of products and/or services.


title: Case F-30/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 — de Fays v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Insurance against occupational diseases and accidents — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 — de Fays v Commission
   (Case F-30/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Insurance against occupational diseases and accidents - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease)
   2012/C 32/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe de Fays (Malèves-Sainte-Marie-Wastines, Belgium) (represented by: N. Soldatos, then by N. Soldatos and C. Eyben, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents, and by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action to annul the decision refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the disease suffered by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action brought by Mr de Fays;

               2.

               orders Mr de Fays to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 03.07.10, p. 59.


title: Case C-228/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 21 May 1999, in the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero delle Finanze

text:
28.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                 4. Is Commission Regulation No 1576/95 of 30 June 1995
Genova, Sezione I, by order of that court of 25 May 1999                   likewise invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a
in the case of Siples srl in liquidation against (1) Ministero             statement of reasons?
delle Finanze and (2) Servizio Riscossione Tributi Conces-
sione Provinciale Genova San Paolo Riscossioni Genova                  5. Do the export operations of 30 June 1995 fall within the
                                SpA                                        scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1415/95 of 22
                                                                           June 1995 as a result of the invalidity of the above-
                         (Case C-226/99)                                   mentioned regulations, or by the repeal referred to in
                                                                           Question 1?
                         (1999/C 246/26)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 150 of 1.7.1995, p. 64.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (2) OJ L 147 of 30.6.1995, p. 65.
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
Genova Sezione I (Genoa District Court, First Chamber) of 25
May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 11
June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siples srl in
liquidation against (1) Ministero delle Finanze and (2) Servizio
Riscossione Tributi Concessione Provinciale Genova San Paolo
Riscossioni Genova SpA on the following question:
Is the power to suspend the contested decision provided for in         Action brought on 16 June 1999 by the Commission
Article 244 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) conferred               of the European Communities against the Republic of
exclusively on the customs authority or also on the judicial                                         Austria
authority before which an appeal has been brought?
                                                                                (Case C-231/99)
(1) Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12.10.1992, OJ 1992 L 302,
    p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/28)
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal Service, acting as
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
Cagliari, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 21 May             of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, in the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero               Centre, Kirchberg.
                           delle Finanze
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-228/99)
                                                                       1. Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (1999/C 246/27)                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     — Council Directive 96/32/EC (1) of 21 May 1996
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari,                     amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating
Sezione Civile, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the                       to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues
Court Registry on 14 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                     in and on fruit and vegetables and Annex II to Directive
the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero delle Finanze                   90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels
on the following questions:                                                     for pesticide residues in and on certain products
                                                                                of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and
1. Does Commission Regulation No 1576/95 (1) of 30 June                         providing for the establishment of a list of maximum
     1995 repeal Commission Regulation No 1521/95 (2) of 29                     levels, and
     June 1995 and, if so, must the latter be held to have had
     no legal effects on 30 June 1995?
                                                                           — Council Directive 96/33/EC (2) of 21 May 1996
                                                                                amending the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and
2. Must Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June
                                                                                86/363/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for
     1995 be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to
                                                                                pesticide residues in and on cereals and foodstuffs of
     export operations already underway and already completed
                                                                                animal origin respectively,
     on the same day on which the regulation itself was
     published and thus made available to the operators
     concerned?                                                            by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
                                                                           period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
3. Is Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June 1995                     necessary to comply with those directives;
     invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a statement
     of reasons?                                                       2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-306/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — Directive 2009/103/EC — Article 21(5) — Claims representative — Authority to accept service of judicial documents — National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept it — Interpretation in conformity with Union law)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/32

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA
   (Case C-306/12) (1)

   (Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 21(5) - Claims representative - Authority to accept service of judicial documents - National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept it - Interpretation in conformity with Union law)
   2013/C 344/55
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Saarbrücken

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Spedition Welter GmbH

      Respondent: Avanssur SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Saarbrücken — Interpretation of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11) — Claims representative — Service on the claims representative of proceedings brought by the injured party against the insurance undertaking — National rule making the validity of that service conditional on the express grant of an authority to accept service — Direct effect of the abovementioned provision of the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, must be interpreted as meaning that the claims representative’s sufficient powers must include authority validly to accept service of judicial documents necessary for proceedings for settlement of a claim to be brought before the court having jurisdiction.

               2.

               In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, where national legislation has reproduced word for word the provisions of Article 21(5) of Directive 2009/103, the referring court is required, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, to interpret national law in a way that is compatible with the interpretation given to the directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-491/10: Action brought on 15 October 2010 — SNCF v OHIM (infotrafic)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/28

         Action brought on 15 October 2010 — SNCF v OHIM (infotrafic)
   (Case T-491/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Reynaud, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Infotrafic SA (Ermont, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Alter paragraphs 16 to 23 of the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2010 in Case R 1268/2009-2.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:‘infotrafic’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 38, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 926 815

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Infotrafic SA

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52 and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as the examination of a complex Community trade mark in which one of the elements is devoid of distinctive character or has questionable distinctive character should consider each element separately: infringement of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-529/12 P: Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014  — Bermejo Garde v EESC (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Appointment to the post of director — Withdrawal of the appellant’s application — Appointment of another candidate — Actions for annulment — Annulment at first instance of the contested vacancy notice on the grounds that the authority issuing that measure lacked competence — Failure to provide an explicit answer to all of the pleas in law and arguments raised by the parties — Principle of sound administration — Inadmissibility of the forms of order seeking the annulment of decisions taken on the basis of the contested vacancy notice — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations — Claim for damages — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to provide a statement of reasons — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Dismissal of the claim)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2014 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case T-529/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Appointment to the post of director - Withdrawal of the appellant’s application - Appointment of another candidate - Actions for annulment - Annulment at first instance of the contested vacancy notice on the grounds that the authority issuing that measure lacked competence - Failure to provide an explicit answer to all of the pleas in law and arguments raised by the parties - Principle of sound administration - Inadmissibility of the forms of order seeking the annulment of decisions taken on the basis of the contested vacancy notice - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations - Claim for damages - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to provide a statement of reasons - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given - Dismissal of the claim))
   2014/C 421/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Lernhart, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Bermejo Garde v EESC (F-51/10, not yet published in the ECR), seeking the partial setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 in Bermejo Garde v EESC (F-51/10) in so far as it rejected the appellant’s claim for damages without providing a statement of reasons;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Rejects the claim for damages brought before the Civil Service Tribunal by Mr Moises Bermejo Garde;

               4.

               Orders Mr Bermejo Garde to bear his own costs in relation to the present appeal proceedings;

               5.

               Orders the European and Economic Social Committee (EESC) to bear its own costs at first instance and on appeal and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Bermejo Garde in the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case T-89/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 December 2015 in Joined Cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14, Clarke and Others v EUIPO

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/32

         Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 December 2015 in Joined Cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14, Clarke and Others v EUIPO
   (Case T-89/16 P)
   (2016/C 145/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spain), Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 in Joined Cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14;

               —

               rule in accordance with the form of order sought by the appellants in those proceedings;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of all of the proceedings — that is, the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal of the EU and the appeal proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on four grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal: erroneous application of the termination clause contained in the appellants’ employment contracts and of each of the ‘renewal protocols’ concluded between EUIPO and the appellants in so far as the competitions at issue are not the ‘next’ competitions within the meaning of the termination clause.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal: erroneous application of the termination clause contained in the appellants’ employment contracts in so far as the competitions at issue do not relate to the specialisation ‘industrial property’ referred to in the termination clause and therefore cannot bring that termination clause into play.
               The appellants claim, in the context of the first and second grounds of appeal, that in the judgment under appeal the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) misconstrued the wording, meaning and purpose of the termination clause as well as its temporal point of reference and applicability.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal: erroneous application of Article 8(1) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the European Union (‘the Conditions of Employment’)
               The appellants submit in this connection that, in the judgment under appeal, the CST failed to recognise that the ‘renewal protocols’ concluded between EUIPO and the appellants constituted, in each case, a contractual agreement to, at least, a second extension of the appellants’ employment contracts, from which, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Conditions of Employment, it followed that the appellants’ contracts of employment had to be regarded as having been concluded for an indefinite period.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal: erroneous application of the duty to have regard for the interests of employees and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The appellants claim in this ground that, in relation to the question whether EUIPO had fulfilled its duty to have regard for the interests of its employees or had infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the CST erred in focusing on the time of the renewal of the employment contracts and not on the time at which the termination clause was signed in so far as it was not until nine years after the termination clause had been signed that EUIPO organised a competition to determine the fate of the appellants’ careers.


title: Case C-419/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Obligation to recover)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-419/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Obligation to recover)
   (2008/C 79/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini, M. Konstantinidis, D. Triantafyllou and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou, P. Mylonopoulos, acting as Agents, V. Christianos and P. Anestis, dikigoroi)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take measures to comply with Commission Decision C(2005) 2706 of 14 September 2005 on the recovery of aid granted to Olympic Airlines
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all measures necessary to put an end to aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by the Commission Decision of 14 December 2005 concerning State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines, and to recover that aid from the recipients, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 1995 in Case C-51/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Directive 79/112/EEC - Reference in the trade description to a substance included in the list of ingredients)

text:
No C 333/4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9 . 12 . 95
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                                    ( Fourth Chamber)
                      of 26 October 1995                                                     of 26 October 1995
in    Case C-51/94: Commission of the European                         in Case C-143/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
      Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )                 the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio ):
(Labelling andpresentation offoodstuffs — Article 30 ofthe             Furlanis Costruzioni Generali SpA v. Azienda Nazionale
EC Treaty and Directive 79/112/EEC — Reference in the                                    Autonoma Strade ( ANAS ) (M
trade description to a substance included in the list of               (Council Directives 71/305/EEC and 89/440/EEC —
                              ingredients)                             Public contracts — Abnormally low tenders in relation to
                            ( 95/C 333/06 )                                                      the transaction)
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/07)
                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-51 /94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Hendrik van Lier and Angela
Bardenhewer ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents:
Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) — application for a                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
declaration that, by requiring that in order to be marketed in                  published in the European Court Reports)
Germany foodstuffs containing an ingredient which does
not comply with the traditional German recipe must carry a
trade description with an additional statement indicating
that the substance in question has been used, even if that             In Case C-143/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
substance is already included in the list of ingredients, the          of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Amministrativo
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                   Regionale del Lazio ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
obligations under Article 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty and              proceedings pending before that court between Furlanis
Articles 5 , 6 and 16 of Council Directive 79/ 112/EEC of              Costruzioni Generali SpA and Azienda Nazionale
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the               Autonoma Strade ( ANAS ) — on the interpretation of
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and              Article 29 ( 5 ) of Council Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July
advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer            1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the
( OJ 1979 L 33 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                 award of public works contracts ( OJ, English Special
composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                 Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 682 ), as amended by Article 1 ( 20 ) of
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann,                  Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 ( OJ 1989
P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges ; F. G. Jacobs,                           L 210 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber), composed of
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar , has given a                   C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber ,
judgment on 26 October 1995 , in which it:                             P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
                                                                       Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
1 . declares that, by requiring that bearnaise sauce and               Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 October 1995 , the
     hollandaise sauce made with vegetable fats and certain            operative part of which is as follows :
     pastry products containing the additive E 160 F '
     should, in order to be marketed in Germany, carry
     a trade description with an additional statement
     indicating that the substance in question has been used,          The last subparagraph of Article 29 (5) of Council Directive
     even if that substance is already included in the                 71 /305/EEC of26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of
     list of ingredients referred to in Article 6 of Council           procedures for the award of public works contracts, as
     Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the                   amended by Article 1 (20) of Council Directive 89/440/EEC
     approximation ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating             of 18 July 1989, must be interpreted as meaning that only
     to the labelling, presentation and advertising of                 procedures in which the definitive award was made by
     foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer, the Federal         3 1 December 1 992 are entitled to qualify for the derogation
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations          provided for in that provision.
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;
2 . dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
3 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .
 (») OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 , p . 17.


title: Case C-546/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Agenzia delle Dogane and Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Agenzia delle Dogane and Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane v ADL American Dataline Srl
   (Case C-546/13)
   2013/C 377/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Agenzia delle Dogane, Ufficio di Verona dell’Agenzia delle Dogane

      Respondent: ADL American Dataline Srl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it contrary to Articles 10(2) and 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 (1) and to the principle of legal certainty to interpret the amendments made to the Explanatory Notes accompanying Chapter 84 of the Schedule of Customs duties set out in Part II of Annex I thereto by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/06 of 17 October 2006 (2) (which excludes loudspeakers from heading 8471 where they are presented separately from automatic data-processing machines) in order to find that the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. (3) … perform a specific function (reproduction and amplification of sound) ‘other’ than data processing?

               2.

               Must the goods imported by ADL American Dataline s.r.l. …, namely, ‘loudspeakers’ marketed separately from automatic data-processing machines, be regarded as devices ‘performing a specific function other than data processing’ — assuming that the reproduction and amplification of sound … must be regarded as such — or is it not possible to regard them as system units performing a specific function other than data processing, since, having regard to their specific technical characteristics (connection only via USB cable; operating system MAC OS 9 required), they ‘have no function which they would be capable of performing without the assistance of such a machine [that is to say, without the assistance of an automatic data-processing machine’ (see Case C-339/98 Peacock AG [2000] ECR I-8947, paragraphs 14 and 15, and Case C-142/06 Olicom [2007] ECR I-6675, paragraphs 20, 29 and 30, which, although referring to other types of device — network cards and ‘combination’ cards — seem to indicate that a lack of any ‘other’ specific function stems from the fact that (i) the device cannot function without a personal computer and (ii) the device has the capacity to accept and to convert at output signals transmitted by the processor)?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1).

      (3)  ‘[L]oudspeakers produced by the US company Harman Multimedia for exclusive use as output peripheral units for “APPLE” computers’.


title: Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Telecom Italia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-96/96)

text:
No C 233/22            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10 . 8 . 96
personal reasons to move with the Centre to Thessaloniki              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
were offered the possibility of secondment for a limited
period of time . Those employees included the applicant,
who, owing to her personal and family situation , was                 The Directive which is the subject of the present action
placed, initially for 10 months, at the disposal of the               provides, inter alia, that the telecommunication
Representative Office of the European Parliament in Berlin .          infrastructures available to operators other than
The applicant states that her husband works as a                      telecommunications organizations should be liberalized
self-employed lawyer and that they have been living,                  from 1 July 1 996 , ahead of the date set for full liberalization ,
together with their two children aged two and six, in Berlin .        1 January 1998 . Furthermore , the Directive provides that
Her application for an extension of her secondment beyond             the burden arising from the provision of universal service
30 June 1996 was rejected by the contested decision of the            obligations should be borne by the undertakings providing
Director of Cedefop of 22 May 1996 . That decision , which            public telecommunications networks .
was notified to the applicant on 29 May 1996 , required her
to take up her duties on 1 July 1996 with the European
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     The applicant is the only firm which enjoys in Italy exclusive
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki .                                         rights in the field in question, which must be abolished
                                                                      according to the contested Directive , conferred on it by an
By her action , the applicant is seeking the annulment of the         Agreement concluded in 1984 with the Minister for Post
contested decision of 22 May 1996 . She complains , first, of         and Telecommunications . It is also the only undertaking
the refusal to extend her secondment in Berlin and seeks an           which provides a public telecommunications network and,
extension of her temporary secondment there until such                as such , is the only one concerned by the national scheme
time as she is able to avail herself of the interinstitutional        concerning provision of universal service obligations .
mobility afforded by Article 29 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the Staff              Moreover, the latter obligations are significantly more
Regulations of officials . In addition , she complains of the         onerous for the applicant than in other Member States
order requiring her to take up her duties with the European           inasmuch as the particular oreography of Italy requires the
Centre for the Development of Vocational Training                     setting up and maintenance of special operations in order to
( Cedefop ) in Thessaloniki on 1 July 1996 .                          be able to offer to all citizens a voice telephony service at an
                                                                      affordable price .
The further pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those in Case T-85 /96 .
                                                                      In the view of the applicant, the contested Articles should be
                                                                      annulled on the grounds of their inadequate statement of
                                                                      reasons, lack of competence of the Commission under
                                                                      Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, abuse of process ,
                                                                      infringement of the principle of proportionality between the
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Telecom Italia SpA                  objective pursued and the means used to attain it,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the
                                                                      protection of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                         ( Case T-96/ 96 )                            general principle of institutional balance and, finally,
                           ( 96/C 233/38 )                            infringement of the fundamental right to property,
                                                                      enshrined in the European Convention on Human
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Rights .
An action against the Commission of the European                      The applicant maintains in particular that :
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is in Turin ,             — the defendant has infringed the provisions laid down by
                                                                          the Council in its resolutions on the timetable for
represented by Mario Siragusa , of the Rome Bar, Giuseppe
Scassellati-Sforzolini , of the Bologna Bar, and Matteo Bay,              liberalization and encroached on the powers of the
of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               Council itself and the European Parliament under
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen .                             Article 100a of the EC Treaty on the harmonization of
                                                                          the financing scheme of universal service costs ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — only Article 86 and Regulation 17/62 should be applied
— annul      Article    2     (2 ) of  Commission      Directive          with regard to the conduct of undertakings rather than
    96/1 9/EC ( 1 ), inasmuch as it provides for the early                Article 90 which, by definition, concerns State
                                                                          measures ,
    liberalization of alternative infrastructures , and
    Article 4c thereof inasmuch as it requires Member States
    to establish a financing scheme of universal service              — there are other means of attaining the objectives of the
    obligations to be entrusted exclusively to undertakings               Commission , either by the full liberalization of the
    providing telecommunications networks ,                               telecommunication markets , in particular by amending
                                                                          Directive 92/44 , applying Article 86 to those
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  undertakings found to be abusing their position, or by
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 8 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233 /23
    imposing in a more proportionate manner requirements                Secondly, the applicant maintains that the decision of
    for contributions to the costs of universal services .              26 July 1988 has been disregarded, in that, first, the
                                                                        contested decision was adopted out of time and, secondly,
(') OJ No L 74 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 13 .                               the procedure leading to that decision was not transparent
                                                                        and the applicant was not consulted but confronted with a
                                                                        fait accompli.
Action brought on 21 June 1996 by Mario Costacurta                      Thirdly, according to the applicant, the contested decision
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    does not comply with the requirements entailed by the duty
                                                                        to state reasons .
                          ( Case T-98/96
                            ( 96/C 233/39 )                             Lastly, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed
                                                                        in his case the principles of the protection of legitimate
                  (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                        expectations and of legal certainty, impaired both his
                                                                        legitimate non-pecuniary and pecuniary rights and misused
An action against the Commission of the European                        its powers .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 1996 by
Mario Costacurta , residing at Kinshara ( Zaïre ), represented
by Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16
Avenue Marie-Thérèse .
                                                                        Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Maria Elisabeth Wolf
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul        the   decision     of   the  Committee    for  the                              ( Case T-101 /96 )
    Administration of Delegations of the Commission of the                                       ( 96/C 233 /40 )
    European Communities , confirmed by the appointing
    authority, contained in Notes No 17493 of
     14 December 1995 , No 8908 of 30 April 1 996 ,                                     (Language of tb e case: Frencb)
    No 14515 of 31 May 19 96 and the appointing
    instrument of 31 May 1996 , assigning the applicant to              An action against the Commission of the European
    the Office for Official Publications of the European                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Communities in Luxembourg,                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1 996 by
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs                    Maria Elisabeth Wolf, residing at Mamer ( Grand Duchy of
    incurred in these proceedings , together with those                 Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
    relating to the procedure for interim relief.                       Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant, a Commission official , who has been serving             The applicant claims that the Court should :
with the Commission's delegation to Zaïre for three years,
contests the appointing authority's decision reassigning him
to the Office for Official Publications of the European                 — annul the decision not to admit the applicant to
Communities in Luxembourg .                                                 competition COM/A/955 ,
The applicant alleges , first, infringement of the rotation             — order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in
system established by the Commission's decision of 26 July                  symbolic damages for the non-material damage
1988 concerning ' orientations about the new rotation                       suffered ,
system '. That decision was taken on the basis of Articles 2
and 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which provide                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
that officials serving in a non-member country are to be
alternately transferred between delegations and the
Commission's seat. Those provisions were infringed in that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Committee for the Administration of Delegations and
the appointing authority included the Office for Official               The applicant argues that, contrary to what is stated in the
Publications in the rotation system , since that body is not            reasons given for the contested decision , which refer to her
covered by the rotation system and cannot be regarded as                lack of the 12 years ' minimum professional experience
the Commission's seat. Furthermore, the applicant had not               required in the competition notice, she has more than 12
yet completed eight years ' service with the delegation , which         years' professional experience at university level acquired
means that the qualifying period for alternate reassignment             subsequently to the degree qualifying her for the
to the delegation or the seat — currently eight years — has in          competition . In her submission , it cannot seriously be
this case been disregarded . Also, the applicant was no longer          denied that the research work undertaken in preparing her
subject to that system since he had been reassigned                     doctoral thesis caused her to carry out tasks in relation to the
definitively .                                                          statistical area described in the notice of competition .


title: Case T-218/12: Action brought on 22 May 2012 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratorios Delta (DELTA)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/26

         Action brought on 22 May 2012 — Micrus Endovascular v OHIM — Laboratorios Delta (DELTA)
   (Case T-218/12)
   2012/C 217/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Micrus Endovascular LLC (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Delta Lda (Queluz, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2012 in case R 244/2011-2; and

               —

               Order that the respondent pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DELTA’, for goods in class 10 — Community trade mark application No 6655906

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International trade mark registration No 131374 of the figurative mark ‘DELTA PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 5; Portuguese trade mark registration No 140578 of the figurative mark ‘DELTA PORTUGAL’, for goods in class 5; Registered trade name No 23113 ‘LABORATORIOS DELTA’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: Joined Cases T-304/04 and T-316/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Italy and Wam v Commission (State aid — Loans at reduced rates intended to make it possible to become established in certain non-member countries — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Statement of reasons)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 September 2006 — Italy and Wam v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-304/04 and T-316/04) (1)

   (State aid - Loans at reduced rates intended to make it possible to become established in certain non-member countries - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Statement of reasons)
   (2006/C 281/57)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Italian Republic (represented initially by A. Cingolo, and subsequently by P. Gentili, lawyers) and Wam SpA (Cavezzo di Modena, Italy) (represented by E. Giliani, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for WAM SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/177/EC of 19 May 2004 on State aid No C 4/2003 (ex NN 102/2002) implemented by Italy for WAM SpA (OJ 2006 L 63, p. 11);

               2.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred, in Case T-304/04, by the Italian Republic and, in Case T-316/04, by Wam, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 9.10.2004.


title: Case C-487/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2007 — L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, (trading as Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales ), Starion International Ltd

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2007 — L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, (trading as ‘Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales’), Starion International Ltd
   (Case C-487/07)
   (2008/C 8/15)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie

      Defendant: Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, trading as ‘Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales’), Starion International Ltd
   Questions referred

               1

               Where a trader, in an advertisement for his own goods or services uses a registered trade mark owned by a competitor for the purpose of comparing the characteristics (and in particular the smell) of goods marketed by him with the characteristics (and in particular the smell) of the goods marketed by the competitor under that mark in such a way that it does not cause confusion or otherwise jeopardise the essential function of the trade mark as an indication of origin, does his use fall within either (a) or (h) of Article 5(I) of Directive 89/104?

               2

               Where a trader in the course of trade uses (particularly in a comparison list) a well known registered trade mark for the purpose of indicating a characteristic of his own product (particularly its smell) in such a way that:

                           a)

                           it does not cause any likelihood of confusion of any sort; and

                           b)

                           it does not affect the sale of the products under the well-known registered mark: and

                           c)

                           it does not jeopardize the essential function of the registered trade mark as a guarantee of origin and does not harm the reputation of that mark whether by tarnishment of its image, or dilution or in any other way; and

                           d)

                           it plays a significant role in the promotion of the trader's product

                     does that use fall within Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104?

               3

               In the context of Article 3a(g) of the Misleading Advertising Directive (84/450) as amended by the Comparative Advertising Directive (97/55), what is the meaning of ‘take unfair advantage of' and in particular where a trader in a comparison list compares his product with a product under a well-known trade mark, does he thereby take unfair advantage of the reputation of the well-known mark’?

               4

               In the context of Article 3a(h) of the said Directive what is the meaning of ‘presenting goods or services as imitations or replicas’ and in particular does this expression cover the case where, without in any way causing confusion or deception, a party merely truthfully says that his product has a major characteristic (smell) like that of a well-known product which is protected by a trade mark?

               5

               Where a trader uses a sign which is similar to a registered trade mark which has a reputation, and that sign is not confusingly similar to the trade mark, in such a way that

                           (a)

                           the essential function of the registered trade mark of providing a guarantee of origin is not impaired or put at risk;

                           (b)

                           there is no tarnishing or blurring of the registered trade mark or its reputation or any risk of either of these;

                           (c)

                           the trade mark owner's sales are not impaired: and

                           (d)

                           the trade mark owner is not deprived of any of the reward for promotion, maintenance or enhancement of his trade mark;

                           (e)

                           But the trader gets a commercial advantage from the use of his sign by reason of its similarity to the registered mark

                     does that use amount to the taking of ‘an unfair advantage’ of the reputation of the registered mark within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Trade Mark Directive?


title: Case C-309/08: Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/7

         Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-309/08)
   (2008/C 247/12)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure the proper implementation in national law of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (1), in particular Article 3(2) and (3) concerning the requirements that national regulatory authorities be independent and that they exercise their powers impartially and transparently, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Poland has failed to ensure an effective separation of regulatory functions from activities linked to the exercise of rights of property or control.
   The Polish State has extensive shareholdings in numerous telecommunications undertakings. At the same time, the national regulatory authority in Poland is appointed by the Prime Minister, who is entitled freely to dismiss it at any time without providing reasons and on whom the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Infrastructures are also fully dependent.
   The absence of provisions defining the duration of the term of the national regulatory authority and the lack of an exhaustive list of conditions allowing for its dismissal results in its being dependent to a significant extent on the Prime Minister and fails to guarantee that those market participants in which the State holds shares will be treated in the same way as other market participants.

      (1)  OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33-50.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2002 in Case T-210/00: Etablissements Biret et Cie. SA v Council of the European Union (Substances having a hormonal action — Directive 88/146/EEC — Action for damages — Period of limitation)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 156/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 11 January 2002                                                        of 11 January 2002
in Case T-174/00: Biret International SA v Council of the                 in Case T-210/00: Etablissements Biret et Cie. SA v
                       European Union (1)                                                Council of the European Union (1)
(Substances having a hormonal action — Directive 88/146/                  (Substances having a hormonal action — Directive 88/146/
     EEC — Action for damages — Period of limitation)                          EEC — Action for damages — Period of limitation)
                         (2002/C 156/35)                                                           (2002/C 156/36)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-174/00: Biret International SA, a company in                    In Case T-210/00, Établissements Biret et Cie SA, established
judicial liquidation, established in Paris, represented in these          in Paris (France), represented by S. Rodrigues, lawyer, with an
proceedings by M. de Thoré, liquidator, and by S. Rodrigues,              address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                Union (Agents: J. Carbery and F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), support-
Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and                     ed by Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by Commission of the                    T. Christoforou and A. Bordes): Application under Article 178
European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and A. Bor-                 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second
des) — application under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now                paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second
Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of                paragraph of Article 288 EC) for compensation for the damage
the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC)                allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its subsidiary,
for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the                 Biret International SA, being placed in judicial liquidation
applicant as a result of the prohibition on the importation into          following the prohibition on the importation into the Com-
the Community of beef and veal treated with certain hormones              munity of beef and veal treated with certain hormones,
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;              B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 January 2002, in which it:                               a judgment on 11 January 2002, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action as being partly inadmissible and for the       1.    Dismisses the action as being partly inadmissible and for the
      rest unfounded;                                                           rest unfounded;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay, in addition to its own costs, those    2.    Orders the applicant to pay, in addition to its own costs, those
      incurred by the Council. The Commission shall pay its own                 incurred by the Council. The Commission shall pay its own
      costs.                                                                    costs.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.