title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 17 September 1997 in Case C-83/96, (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Provincia Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provindiale di Trento v. Dega di Depretto Gino Snc (Consumer protection - Labelling of foodstuffs - Council Directive 79/112/EEC)

text:
1 . 11 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331 /7
3 . A tax levied only on certain products, which is not                    that, where that directive has not been transposed by the
      proportional to the price of those products, is not                  end of the period laid down for that purpose, the appeal
       charged at each stage of the production and                         bodies of the Member States having competence in
       distribution process and is not imposed on the added                relation to procedures for the award of public works
       value of the products, is not in the nature of a                    contracts and public supply contracts may also hear
       turnover tax within the meaning of Article 33 of the                appeals relating to procedures for the award of public
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388IEEC) of 17 May 1977                  service contracts. However, in order to observe the
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member                      requirement that domestic law must be interpreted in
       States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of                conformity with Directive 921SO and the requirement that
       value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.                       the rights of individuals must be protected effectively, the
                                                                           national court must determine whether the relevant
0 ) OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                           provisions of its domestic law allow recognition of a right
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                    for individuals to bring an appeal in relation to awards of
                                                                           public service contracts. In circumstances such as those
                                                                           arising in the present case, the national court must
                                                                           determine in particular whether such a right of appeal
                                                                           may be exercised before the same bodies as those
                                                                           established to hear appeals concerning the award of public
                                                                           supply contracts and public works contracts.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           H OJ C 108 , 13 . 4. 1996 .
                          of 17 September 1997                             ( 2 ) OJ L 209, 24 . 7. 1992, p. 1 .
in Case C-54/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes ): Dorsch
Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesbaugesellschaft
                              Berlin mbH ( J )
(Meaning of 'national court or tribunal' for the purposes
of Article 1 77 of the Treaty — Procedures for the award                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC —
                          National review body)                                                       ( First Chamber)
                              ( 97/C 331/11 )                                                      of 17 September 1997
                                                                           in Case C-83/96, (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ): Provincia Autonoma di
                  (Language of the case: German)                           Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provindiale di Trento v.
                                                                                Dega di Depretto Gino Snc (')
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Consumer protection — Labelling of foodstuffs —
                                                                                Council Directive 79/112/EEC)
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331/12 )
In Case C-54/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Vergabeiiberwachungsausschufi                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
des      Bundes       ( Federal      Public  Procurement     Awards
Supervisory Board ) ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that body between                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Dorsch         Consult        Ingenieurgesellschaft     mbH      and                   published in the European Court Reports)
Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH — on the interpretation
of Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                    In Case C-83/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
award of public service contracts (2 ) — the Court,                        of the EC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                    ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                    before that court between, on the one hand, Provincia
Sevon (Presidents of Chambers), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                   Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,                   Trento and, on the other, Dega di Depretto Gino Snc, on
G. Hirsch, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M.                         the interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) of Council Directive
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                    79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation
General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the                     of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in                   presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the
which it has ruled :                                                       ultimate consumer ( 2 ), — the Court ( First Chamber)
                                                                           composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
                                                                           and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
It does not follow from Article 41 of Council Directive                    General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination                     given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in which it has
of procedures for the award of public service contracts                    ruled :
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /8                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 11 . 97
Article 3 (1 ) (6) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                      States relating to the protection of employees in the event
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of                       of the insolvency of their employer, for the payment of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation                  that employee's claims in the event of the employer's
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate                     insolvency is the institution of the State in which, in
consumer is to be interpreted as meaning that the                          accordance with Article 2 (1 ) of the directive, either it is
expression 'established within the Community ' used in it                  decided to open the proceedings for the collective
refers only to the seller.                                                 satisfaction of creditors ' claims or it has been established
                                                                           that the employer's undertaking or business has been
                                                                           closed down.
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
( 2 ) OJ L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
                                                                           (') OJ C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p. 23 .
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 17 September 1997
                                                                                of 17 September 1997
in Case C- 11 7/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Østre Landsret): Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende,                      in Case C-141/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Osnabrück-Land v.
acting on behalf of Carina Mosbæk v. Lønmodtagernes
                               Garantifond (*)                                                     Bernhard Langhorst (')
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of                   (Value added tax — Interpretation of Articles 21 (1 ) (c)
                                                                           and 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC —
the employer's insolvency — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Employee residing and employed in a State other than that                  Document serving as an invoice — Credit note issued by
in which the employer is established — Guarantee                           the buyer and not contested by the seller as regards the
                                   institution)                                                     amount of tax shown)
                                ( 97/C 331 / 13                                                          ( 97/C 331/14 )
                    (Language of the case: Danish)                                           (Language of the case: German)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                   published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-117/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                 In Case C-141 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Eastern                         of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
Regional Court) ( Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in                    Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the proceedings pending before that court between                          pending before that court between Finanzamt Osnabrück-
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende, acting on behalf of                       Land and Bernhard Langhorst — on the interpretation
Carina Mosbæk and Lønmodtagernes Garantifond — on                          of Articles 21 ( 1 ) (c ) and 22 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth
the interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/               Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the                         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                    to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
employees in the event of the insolvency of their                          uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of:
employer (2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:                   G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L.                    Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L.
Sevón, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet                            Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.                     Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has                     Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in which it has                     Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
ruled:                                                                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
                                                                           1997, in which it has ruled:
Where the employer is established in a Member State
other than that in • which the employee resides and was                    1 . Article 22 (3) (c) of the Sixth Chamber Directive 77/
employed, the guarantee institution responsible, under                           388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October                           laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                              — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2000 in Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — New fact — Promotion — Comparative examination on the merits)

text:
24.3.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 95/11
2.    dismisses as inadmissible the application in Case T-85/99;              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3.    orders the Parliament to bear its own costs, and to pay those of                          of 21 November 2000
      Mr Ripa di Meana and Mr Orlando, in Cases T-83/99 and
      T-84/99;                                                            in Case T-214/99: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
4.    orders Mr Parigi to bear his own costs, as well as to pay those
      of the Parliament, in Case T-85/99.                                 (Officials — Recruitment — Access to internal competitions
                                                                          — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of
                                                                               service — Professional experience of the candidate)
(1) OJ No C 160 of 5/6/99.
                                                                                (2001/C 95/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-214/99: Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez, an official
                                                                          of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               London, represented by J.-N. Louis, G. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at Société de gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois,
                      of 26 September 2000                                against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                          J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) — application for the annulment
                                                                          of the decision of the internal selection boards for competitions
in Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden v Commission of the
                                                                          COM/T/R/ADM/A/98, COM/R/5179/98, COM/R/5182/98,
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                          COM/R/5183/98, COM/R/5188/98 and COM/R/5190/98 not
                                                                          to admit him to those competitions — the Court of First
(Officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits                 Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
— New fact — Promotion — Comparative examination on                       J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                             the merits)                                  trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 November
                                                                          2000, in which it:
                          (2001/C 95/19)                                  1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ No C 333 of 20/11/99.
In Case T-138/99: Luc Verheyden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Angera
(Italy), represented by E. Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for the annulment of                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 with
retroactive effect from 10 October 1989 and of the decision                                     of 12 December 2000
not to promote the applicant in the 1998 promotion exercise,
and for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which                   in Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem v European Investment
he claims to have suffered — the Court of First Instance                                                 Bank (1)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President,
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for            (Officials — Removal from post — Failure to comply with a
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2000, the               judgment annulling a decision — Article 233 EC — Non-
operative part of which is as follows:                                    contractual liability of the Community — Non-material
                                                                                damage — Compensation)
1.    The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2001/C 95/21)
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                          In Case T-11/00: Michel Hautem, a servant of the European
                                                                          Investment Bank, residing in Schouweiler (Luxembourg), rep-
                                                                          resented by M. Karp and J. Choucroun, of the Luxembourg


title: Case T-404/11: Action brought on 25 July 2011 — Turbo v Council

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/11

         Action brought on 25 July 2011 — Turbo v Council
   (Case T-404/11)
   2011/C 290/15
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, requiring the defendant to submit all documents in connection with the contested decision, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
               The applicant's rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) have been infringed. Article 16 of the Charter guarantees the freedom to conduct a business in the European Union and Article 17 guarantees the right to use and, in particular, to dispose of lawfully acquired possessions in the European Union. Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter guarantee the applicant the right to equal treatment and the right not to be discriminated against.
               The applicant is excluded from participation in trade in the European Union by the contested decision. The economic survival of the applicant is thereby threatened. The applicant is dependent on deliveries from the economic territory of the European Union.
               There is no public interest in the restriction of the applicant’s freedom to conduct a business, its property rights, its right to equal treatment and its right not to be discriminated against. In particular, there is no evidence to justify the defendant’s decision and the related interference with the applicant’s fundamental rights. The applicant is, in particular, not engaged in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and/or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.
               There is a misunderstanding. The company named in the contested decision SATAK is not identical to the applicant. It is a third party which is external to the applicant. The applicant can only explain the fact that in the contested decision it was included in the list in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, by that fact that there was confusion with another company which controls ‘SATAK’ or a similarly named company.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifestly incorrect appraisal of the facts on which the contested decision was based
               The applicant is not engaged in proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, trade and/or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems or other weapon system.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
               The defendant did not respect the principle of proportionality in its decision. The applicant can only assume on the basis of searches made on the Internet for the keywords ‘SATAK’ and ‘Iran's nuclear programme’, that the delivery identified in Point 31 of Annex IB to Decision 2011/299/CFSP involves 6 Soviet-type KH-55(SM) airborne cruise missiles, which Iran allegedly acquired from the Ukraine in 2001 or 2002.
               The applicant has no business dealings with the Ukrainian public enterprise UkrSpetzExport, nor does it import Soviet-type KH-55(SM) airborne cruise missiles or other weapons or weapon delivery systems.
               The applicant is not the company named ‘SATAK’ in Point 31 of Annex 1B to the contested decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence
               The statement of reasons set out in Point 31 of Annex 1B to the contested decision is incomprehensible to the applicant and verifiable reasons were not communicated to the applicant by the defendant, with the result that the applicant’s rights of defence and right to a genuine redress have been infringed.


title: Case F-130/05: Action brought on  31 December 2005  — Soares v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/57

         Action brought on 31 December 2005 — Soares v Commission
   (Case F-130/05)
   (2006/C 60/105)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Alberto Soares (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 19 September 2005, rejecting the applicant's request seeking reconstitution of his career

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant makes a single plea in law claiming infringement of the principles of sound management, sound administration and equal treatment, and of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force before 1 May 2004.
   The applicant accuses the Commission of holding back his career by not drawing up staff reports for the promotion years 1995 to 2000 and by not taking all measures capable of repairing the damage that the applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the absence of those staff reports.


title: Case C-59/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-59/07)
   (2007/C 69/27)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durante and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC (1) of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition into domestic law of Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 February 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.


title: Removal from the register of T-17/97 R

text:
No C 252/42          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
1996 ('), which held to be unlawful the rejection of the                   Removal from the register of T-17/97 R (')
complaint submitted by him against a decision which,                                          ( 97/C 252/87
although recognizing his entitlement to the allowance for
persons treated as dependent children in respect of the                            (Language of the case: Italian)
first of his two sons, withheld the right to that allowance
for his second son. After that judgment was notified to            By order of 30 June 1997 the President of the Court of
him, the applicant requested the relevant Director-General         First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
to extend the effect of that judgment to the years 1993 ,          the removal from the register of Case T-17/97 R:
1994 and 1995 . In its reply of 10 September 1996, the             Viglienzone Adriatica SpA v. Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities .
administrative authority granted that request only for the
period from 1 December 1992 to 30 November 1993 , on
                                                                   (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
the ground that the judgment of 19 June could not be
regarded as implying that a second allowance should be
granted for periods after those covered by the annulled
decision. A subsequent request for review of that decision
was also rejected, by decision of 15 October 1996 .
                                                                           Removal from the register of T-39/97 R (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/88 )
Consequently, whilst the applicant seeks, by virtue of the
judgment, a new decision covering all the periods of time                        (Language of the case: German)
for which, in his opinion, he is entitled to an allowance          By order of 13 June 1997 the President of the Court of
for a person treated as a dependent child for both his             First Instance of the European Communities has ordered
sons, the Commission has granted him that right only for           the removal from the register of Case T-39/97 R: T.
the period of time expressly mentioned in the body of the          Port GmbH & Co. v. Commission of the European
annulling judgment. In the applicant's view, the                   Communities .
Commission is exploiting the alleged imprecision of the
judgment as regards the periods following 30 November              (') OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
1993 in order to withhold a right which is lawfully vested
in him. He considers that the administrative authority is
thereby guilty of misuse of powers.
                                                                             Removal from the register of T-71/97 (')
The applicant considers that the judgment of 19 June
1996 is effective ex tunc and that the Commission should                                      ( 97/C 252/89
therefore review the case not only for the period to which                        (Language of the case: English)
the annulled decision relates but also for subsequent
periods .                                                          By order of 2 June 1997 the President of the Third
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
(') ECR-SC 1996 ] 11-909 .
                                                                   Case T-71/97: Monsanto Europe SA v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
                                                                   H OJ No C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997.


title: Case C-133/16: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44/EC — Article 5(1) — Period of liability of the seller — Limitation period — Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Second-hand goods — Contractual reduction of the seller’s liability)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Mons — Belgium) — Christian Ferenschild v JPC Motor SA
   (Case C-133/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Directive 1999/44/EC - Article 5(1) - Period of liability of the seller - Limitation period - Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) - Second-hand goods - Contractual reduction of the seller’s liability))
   (2017/C 293/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christian Ferenschild

      Defendant: JPC Motor SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding a rule of a Member State which allows the limitation period for action by the consumer to be shorter than two years from the time of delivery of the goods where the Member State has made use of the option given by the latter of those two provisions, and the seller and consumer have agreed on a period of liability of the seller of less than two years, namely a one-year period, for the second-hand goods concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-222/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction clause — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 23 — Clause inserted in the general conditions — Consent of the parties to those conditions — Validity and precision of such a clause)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/20

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services
   (Case C-222/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction clause - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 23 - Clause inserted in the general conditions - Consent of the parties to those conditions - Validity and precision of such a clause))
   (2016/C 335/27)
   Language of the case: Hungary

      Referring court

   Pécsi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hőszig Kft.

      Defendant: Alstom Power Thermal Services,

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, first, is set out in the client’s general terms and conditions, referred to in the instruments witnessing the contracts between those parties and forwarded upon their conclusion, and, secondly, designates as courts with jurisdiction those of a city of a Member State, meets the requirements of that provision relating to the consent of the parties and the precision of the content of such a clause.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case C-64/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 — Czech Republic) — Telefónica O2 Czech Republic as, formerly Český Telecom as v Czech On Line as (Electronic communications — Networks and services — Common regulatory framework — Dominant undertaking — Obligation of interconnection with other operators — Transitional provisions — Directive 97/33)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 — Czech Republic) — Telefónica O2 Czech Republic as, formerly Český Telecom as v Czech On Line as
   (Case C-64/06) (1)

   (Electronic communications - Networks and services - Common regulatory framework - Dominant undertaking - Obligation of interconnection with other operators - Transitional provisions - Directive 97/33)
   (2007/C 183/18)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Referring court
   Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 — Czech Republic
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telefónica O2 Czech Republic as, formerly Český Telecom as

      Defendant: Czech On Line as
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 (Czech Republic) — Interpretation of provisions of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7) and 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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) — Obligation imposed by the national regulatory authority on an undertaking with significant power in the telecommunications market to conclude a contract with another operator on the interconnection of networks, following an administrative procedure which took place for the most part before accession to the EU and was not preceded by a market analysis procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   In accordance with the transitional provisions of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, the ‘Access Directive’) and 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 (the ‘Framework Directive’), the Český telekomunikační úřad [Czech telecommunications regulatory authority] was entitled to consider the obligation, on the part of a telecommunications company with significant market power within the meaning of Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP), as amended by Directive 98/61/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998, to conclude a contract for the interconnection of its networks with that of another operator, subsequent to 1 May 2004, within the context of the provisions of Directive 97/33, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case F-144/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Bleyaert v Council

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/41

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Bleyaert v Council
   (Case F-144/06)
   (2007/C 20/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eric Bleyaert (Maldegem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant's name on the list of officials selected to follow the training programme in the framework of the certification procedure for 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Council official in Grade AST 8, applied for the certification procedure for 2005. His name, which appeared in the draft list of officials selected to follow the training programme in the framework of the 2005 certification exercise, was not included in the definitive list, published on 22 May 2006, which the Appointing Authority adopted taking into account the opinion of the joint committee for the certification procedure. That committee had heard the applicant on 17 May 2006.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of the duty to state reasons, especially as the Appointing Authority did not reply to his complaint. Moreover, the applicant asserts the infringement of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations and Article 5 of the general provisions implementing that article of those Regulations. In particular, the joint committee, which could hear only officials who challenged the draft list, was not entitled to summon the applicant. In any event, the applicant claims that the principle of equal treatment was also infringed, in that the joint committee did not hear all the officials whose names were included on the draft list.


title: Case T-5/08: Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/55

         Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle)
   (Case T-5/08)
   (2008/C 64/88)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 1 October 2007, Case R 563/2006-2 (CTM 3 157 005);

               —

               decide that the contested CTM application No 3 157 005 RED MUG device with ‘Golden Eagle’ and eagle design must be rejected;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order Master Beverage, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings; including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, in case it should become an intervening party in this case.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Golden Eagle’ for goods in class 30 — application No 3 157 005

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

      Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks ‘Red Cup’, ‘Gold Blend’ and representations of a cup for, inter alia, coffee

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the conflicting trade marks have a high degree of visual similarity because of an identical arrangement of nine elements present in both the trade mark applied for and in most of the earlier marks, which are inherently distinctive.


title: Case C-374/07 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/17

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2007 by Mebrom NV against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05: Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-374/07 P)
   (2007/C 247/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, avocat, C. Mereu, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05;

               —

               Declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-198/05 admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Grant the request for damages made by the Appellant at first instance or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

               —

               Order the Defendant to bear all the costs and expenses of both proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:
   Distortion of facts and evidence and manifest error in the legal assessment of facts:

               —

               Incorrect assessment of questions and answers provided as evidence in the form of questionnaires;

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the questionnaires regarding the seasonal use of methyl bromide;

               —

               Omission of sales figures presented by the appellant and an obvious confusion between sales and import figures provided by the appellant and the defendant respectively;

               —

               Failure to properly evaluate the sales figures;

               —

               Contradictions and incoherence in the legal assessment of facts;

               —

               Failure to assess the evidence collectively and in combined form.

         Misapplication of the legal requirement to establish actual damage:

               —

               Confusion of the existence of damage with the extent of damage;

               —

               Confusion of the examination of the existence of damage with the examination of a causal link;

               —

               Requirement to show that the damage could not be made up.

         The CFI placed a disproportionate and unjustified burden of proof on the appellant.
   Inconsistency in reasoning.
   Procedural error in the application of the legal standard related to the receipt of new evidence in the course of proceedings.
   Infringement of the rights of defence, the right to a fair hearing and equality of arms.


title: Case T-419/15: Action brought on 28 July 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/27

         Action brought on 28 July 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-419/15)
   (2015/C 337/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul:

                           —

                           Decision No D(2015)24297 of 29 May 2015 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which procurement procedure reference number INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 — lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg was annulled;

                           —

                           Decision No D(2015)28116 of 11 June 2015 of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics of the European Parliament by which procurement procedure reference number INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO4 — lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg was annulled;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons, in so far as the defendant merely justified the annulment decisions of 29 May 2015 and 11 June 2015 on the ground that the other offers received, including the applicants’, significantly exceeded the estimate of the market value previously used as a basis by the contracting authority, without specifying that value in those decisions. The defendant indicated that estimated amount only in a later letter of 18 June 2015.

               2.

               Second plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicants argue that the defendant’s estimate of the market value does not correspond to the reality of the market and is vitiated by a manifest undervaluation.


title: Case T-821/14: Action brought on 20 December 2014  — Pollo Delta di Scabin Giancarlo e C. v Commission

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/44

         Action brought on 20 December 2014 — Pollo Delta di Scabin Giancarlo e C. v Commission
   (Case T-821/14)
   (2015/C 065/60)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pollo Delta di Scabin Giancarlo e C. Snc (Porto Viro, Italy) (represented by: V. Migliorini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare null and void and in any event annul: (i) the letter Ref. SM/FUN S/2622874 of 28 July 2014 (sent by Jerzy Plewa, European Commission Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, to Felice Assenza, Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Director-General for International Policy and the European Union), of which the applicant became aware as a result of access to documents on 19 November 2014, in so far as that letter rejects Italy’s application regarding Support Measures 6 to 9 requested under Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, particularly those relating to abattoirs for the killing of animals pursuant to health measures designed to prevent the spread of avian flu and those relating to the resulting damage to businesses; (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 of 10 October 2014 on exceptional support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2014, in so far as it excludes from the support measures adopted under Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 abattoirs for the killing of animals pursuant to health measures designed to prevent the spread of avian flu and the resulting damage to businesses;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-820/14 Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission.


title: Case F-114/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Nationals of the State in whose territory their place of employment is situated — Habitual residence)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014 — Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission
   (Case F-114/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions set out in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Nationals of the State in whose territory their place of employment is situated - Habitual residence)
   2014/C 78/40
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jelenkowska-Luca (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision not to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Jelenkowska-Luca to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.13, p. 71.


title: Case C-87/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza (Italy)) — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(b), first indent — Court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation on which the application is based — Sale of goods — Place of delivery — Contract containing the clause ‘Delivered Ex Works’ )

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza (Italy)) — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA
   (Case C-87/10) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(b), first indent - Court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation on which the application is based - Sale of goods - Place of delivery - Contract containing the clause ‘Delivered Ex Works’)
   2011/C 226/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Vicenza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Electrosteel Europe SA

      Defendant: Edil Centro SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Meaning of ‘the place where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’ — Final destination of the goods covered by the contract or the place in which the seller is discharged of his obligation to deliver

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of distance selling, the place where the goods were or should have been delivered pursuant to the contract must be determined on the basis of the provisions of that contract.

               2.

               In order to verify whether the place of delivery is determined ‘under the contract’, the national court seised must take account of all the relevant terms and clauses of that contract which are capable of clearly identifying that place, including terms and clauses which are generally recognised and applied through the usages of international trade or commerce, such as the Incoterms drawn up by the International Chamber of Commerce in the version published in 2000.

               3.

               If it is impossible to determine the place of delivery on that basis, without referring to the substantive law applicable to the contract, the place of delivery is the place where the physical transfer of the goods took place, as a result of which the purchaser obtained, or should have obtained, actual power of disposal over those goods at the final destination of the sales transaction.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


C 41/24                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.2.98
Ð the Commission knew of, or could not in any event                 Communities ordered the removal from the register of
    have been unaware of, the dangerous nature of                   Case T-173/96: Teresa Maria Rodrigues Gomes de
    asbestos generally, and, in particular, the danger which        Oliveira v. Commission of the European Communities.
    it represented for persons performing tasks of an
    administrative nature and archive work in a building            (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
    contaminated with asbestos;
Ð the Commission knew that it lacked sufficient staff to
    monitor compliance with safety and hygiene standards
    generally and the protection measures applicable
    during the course of maintenance works.                         Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-176/96 and
                                                                                T-108/97 (1)
The unlawfulness of the conduct in question also results                                    (98/C 41/49)
from a disregard of the principles, rights and guarantees                          (Language of the case: French)
contained in the European Social Charter. Those
principles, rights and guarantees constitute general                By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the First
principles of Community law with which the Community                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
authorities are required to comply and which the                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Community judicature is required to monitor. On the                 Joined Cases T-176/96 and T-108/97, Cornelis Volger v.
basis of that Charter, the applicant claims that all workers        European Parliament.
are entitled to safety and hygiene at work, that all persons
are entitled to the benefit of all such measures as will            (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996 and OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
enable them to enjoy the best possible state of health and
that it is necessary, in so far as may be possible, to prevent
epidemic, endemic and other illnesses. In the present case,
the applicant's rights were disregarded and no measures
were taken to prevent diseases caused by contact with
asbestos.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-225/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 41/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 17 December 1997, the President of the
                                                                    Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
          Removal from the register of T-173/96 (1)                 European Communities ordered the removal from the
                          (98/C 41/48)                              register of Case T-225/97: Asia Motor France SA, Jean-
                                                                    Michel Cesbron, Monin Automobiles SA and Europe Auto
                (Language of the case: French)                      Service (EAS) SA v. Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities.
By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Case C-384/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
   (Case C-384/12)
   2012/C 343/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Rostock

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Per Harald Lökkevik

      Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock

      Question referred

   Should the concept of an advantage within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes a situation in which it appears that simply a lack of competence of the European Commission has been brought about by statements made in a subsidy procedure for the purposes of avoiding the prescribed notification of regional investment aid projects with total project costs of at least EUR 50 million laid down in Section 2(1)(i) of the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7)?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-661/14: Action brought on 11 September 2014 — Republic of Latvia v European Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/56

      Action brought on 11 September 2014 — Republic of Latvia v European Commission
      (Case T-661/14)
      (2014/C 395/69)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Parties

         Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: Inguss Kalniņš and Dace Pelše)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 4479 (1) of 9 July 2014 in so far as it affects the Republic of Latvia and in so far as it excludes from Union financing expenditure in the amount of EUR 739 393,95, incurred by the accredited paying agency of Latvia in the financial years 2009 to 2012, in relation to the establishment of cross compliance requirements;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs of the Republic of Latvia.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  By its first plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) and of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, (2) in that:

                              —

                              It follows from Article 5 of Regulation No 1782/2003 and from the case-law of the Court of Justice that Member States, when taking into account the specific characteristics of the areas concerned, have a measure of discretion in establishing the requirements relating to good agricultural and environmental condition.

                              —

                              The problems referred to in the annex to Regulation No 1782/2003 can be resolved by examining each problem and imposing the most appropriate (effective) standards from amongst those established in that regulation on the basis of the national context.

                              —

                              Taking into account the principle of proportionality, that is to say, if the introduction of a requirement affects small agricultural holdings only and thereby creates administrative burdens and costs significantly greater than the benefits, Member States may introduce essential requirements, provided that these are such as to enable the objectives laid down in Regulation No 1782/2003 to be achieved.

                              —

                              The Commission did not adopt a consistent approach with regard to the mandatory and essential nature of the requirements listed in Annex III to Regulation No 1782/2003; in addition, there was a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations because of the Commission’s failure to act until the autumn of 2009.

                  2.

                  By its second plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in its application of Regulation No 1290/2005 (2) and Guidelines No VI/5330/97 (Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences within the framework of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee) when it calculated the financial correction for the Republic of Latvia because:

                              —

                              It failed to apply the principle of proportionality, in that it did not indicate what was the risk occasioned to the funds and did not take into account the calculations submitted by the Republic of Latvia, on the basis of which the risk occasioned was smaller.

                              —

                              It infringed the Guidelines, under which the criterion of the flat-rate correction is only to be used when it is not possible, on the basis of the information available, to calculate the losses, despite the fact that the Republic of Latvia sent the Commission precise information which made it possible to calculate the risk occasioned to the funds.

         (1)  Commission Implementing Decision 2014/458/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62).

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-96/05: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/65/EC — Annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-96/05: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/65/EC - Annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 48/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-96/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, brought on 21 February 2005 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.


title: Case T-253/13: Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex Medizinische Instrumente (IRAP)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/40

         Action brought on 6 May 2013 — Orthogen v OHIM — Arthrex Medizinische Instrumente (IRAP)
   (Case T-253/13)
   2013/C 207/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Orthogen AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Finger and S. Krüger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arthrex Medizinische Instrumente GmbH (Karlsfeld, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2013 in Case R 382/2012-1;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘IRAP’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 5, 10, 42 and 44 — Community trade mark No 3 609 121

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Arthrex Medizinische Instrumente GmbH

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute ground for invalidity; ‘IRAP’ is a commonly used abbreviation for a certain protein which plays a significant role in certain medical and veterinary treatments.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-189/15: Action brought on 15 April 2015 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/30

         Action brought on 15 April 2015 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission
   (Case T-189/15)
   (2015/C 190/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: TMG Landelijke Media BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Menzo Willems (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Le Poole and L. Broers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 17 February 2015;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants challenge the Commission Decision whereby their request for access to the correspondence between the Netherlands and the Commission, concerning the European additional tax imposed on the Netherlands in 2014, was rejected in part.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). The applicants claim that the Commission wrongly did not make certain documents public because public disclosure would lead to an undermining of the protection of the public interest regarding European Union financial, monetary or economic policy.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants claim that the Commission provided evidence inadequate for concluding that the decision-making process will be seriously undermined, and that it wrongly and readily disregarded the test on the higher public interest in the public disclosure of certain documents.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in relation to the anonymisation of non-senior staff. The applicants claim that that makes it impossible to determine the level at which correspondence is carried out and whether it indeed concerns non-senior staff.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants are of the view that the Commission wrongly accepted the Netherlands’ request not to disclose certain documents originating from the Netherlands on the basis of Article 4(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. They refer in that regard to the arguments put forward in the context of the second and third pleas.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 April 2002 in Case T-220/96: Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act — Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 — Embargo on trade with Iraq — Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation — Causal link)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 156/13
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 20 March 2002
                        of 24 April 2002
                                                                         in Case T-9/99, HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Betei-
                                                                         ligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Others v Com-
in Case T-220/96: Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO) v                             mission of the European Communities (1)
Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                         Article 85 of the Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Boycott —
                                                                         Fine — Guidelines on setting fines — Objection of illegality
(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act — Regulation              — Non-retroactivity — Rights of defence — Leniency notice)
(EEC) No 2340/90 — Embargo on trade with Iraq —
Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation — Causal
                                                                                (2002/C 156/24)
                                link)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2002/C 156/23)
                                                                         In Case T-9/99: HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteili-
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        gungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Rosenheim
                                                                         (Germany), HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungs-
                                                                         gesellschaft mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft, established in
                                                                         Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik Vertriebsgesellschaft
                                                                         mbH, established in Rosenheim, Isoplus Fernwärmetechnik
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established in Hohenberg Austria, Isoplus
In Case T-220/96, Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO),                   Fernwärmetechnik GmbH, established in Sondershausen (Ger-
established in Athens (Greece), represented by T. Fortsakis,             many), represented by P. Krömer and F. Nusterer, lawyers, with
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council             an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
of the European Union (Agent: S. Kyriakopoulou) and Com-                 the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and É. Gippini
mission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-                   Fournier) — application for, primarily, annulment of Com-
Durande): Application for compensation for the damage                    mission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998 relating to
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption          a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 of 8 August 1990                  35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1)
preventing trade by the Community as regards Iraq and Kuwait             or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the
(OJ 1990 L 213, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth               applicants by that decision — the Court of First Instance
Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and              (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,           and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 April 2002, in             trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March
which it:                                                                2002, in which it:
                                                                         1.    Annuls Articles 3(d) and 5(d) of Commission Decision 1999/
1.    Dismisses the application;                                               60/EC of 21 October 1999 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                               Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691.E-4: — Pre-
                                                                               Insulated Pipe Cartel) in so far as it relates to HFB Holding für
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                   Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and
                                                                               HFB Holding für Fernwärmetechnik Beteiligungsgesellschaft
                                                                               mbH, Verwaltungsgesellschaft;
                                                                         2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.
                                                                         3.    Orders the applicants jointly and severally to bear their own
                                                                               costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings,
                                                                               and to pay 80 % of the costs incurred by the Commission,
                                                                               including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;


title: Case T-89/14: Action brought on 10 February 2014  — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/49

         Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-89/14)
   2014/C 135/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               declare Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               declare decision 2010/413 CFSP inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the implementing regulation and the decision mentioned in the first two indents of the present form of order, as from 20 January 2014;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law of which eight are essentially identical or similar to those advanced in Case T-65/14 Bank Refah Kargaran v Council.
   Furthermore the applicant relies on a plea in law alleging infringement of the principles of equality and of non-discrimination.


title: Case C-366/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Optimus — Telecomunicações SA v Fazenda Pública (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC — Article 7(1) — Capital duty — Exemption — Conditions — Situation as at 1 July 1984 )

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Optimus — Telecomunicações SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-366/05) (1)

   (Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC - Article 7(1) - Capital duty - Exemption - Conditions - Situation as at 1 July 1984)
   (2007/C 183/10)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Optimus — Telecomunicações SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Intervener: Ministério Público
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 4(2), Article 7(1), Article 8 and Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412) as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Stamp duty levied on an increase of capital of a public limited company, paid up in cash, even though as at 1 July 1984 transactions of that kind were exempt from such duty
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In the case of a State such as the Portuguese Republic, which acceded to the European Communities with effect from 1 January 1986, in the absence of derogating provisions in the Act of Accession of that State or in another Community document, Article 7(1) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted to mean that the mandatory exemption for which it provides applies to all transactions falling within the scope of Directive 69/335 which, on 1 July 1984, were exempted, in that State, from capital duty or which were subject to that duty at a reduced rate of 0.50 % or less.

               2.

               In the case of a State such as the Portuguese Republic, which acceded to the European Communities with effect from 1 January 1986, Articles 7(1) and 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, prohibit the introduction, after 1 January 1986, of stamp duty on a transaction increasing share capital falling within the scope of Directive 69/335 which, on 1 July 1984, was exempted from that duty under national law.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case T-157/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/63

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-157/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/113)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-553/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/60

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Export Development Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-553/15)
   (2015/C 398/75)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Export Development Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should hold:

               —

               that by adopting and maintaining in force the restrictive measure adopted by the Council of the European Union against EDBI, annulled by judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 (Cases T-4/11 and T-5/11), the Council of the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability on behalf of the European Union;

               —

               that in consequence, the European Union is required to make good the resulting harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               that the material harm amounts to USD 5 6 4 70  860, that is to say EUR 5 0 5 08  718 at the current rate, to which sum must be added legal interest and any other sum justified;

               —

               that the non-material harm amounts to USD 7 4 1 32  366, that is to say EUR 6 6 20  613[sic] at the current rate, to which sum must be added legal interest and any other sum justified;

               —

               in the alternative, that all or part of the sums claimed in respect of non-material harm are to be regarded as falling within material harm and are to be recorded as such; and

               —

               that the Council must be ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, of which two concern the incurring of non-contractual liability on behalf of the European Union and four the harm resulting from the unlawful conduct of the Council of the European Union.

               —

               The incurring of non-contractual liability on behalf of the European Union

                           1.

                           First plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct on the part of the Council (adoption and maintenance in force of a freezing of the applicant’s funds), duly held by judgment of 6 September 2013 in Export Development Bank of Iran v Council, T-4/11 and T-5/11, EU:T:2013:400.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law, alleging that the unlawful conduct committed by the Council is a sufficiently serious breach of the rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals.

               —

               The harm resulting from the unlawful conduct of the Council of the European Union

                           3.

                           Third plea in law, alleging the ceasing of documentary credit activities by the applicant as a direct consequence of the unlawful measure.

                           4.

                           Fourth plea in law, alleging loss of earnings consequent upon the applicant’s inability to access its funds frozen in the European Union.

                           5.

                           Fifth plea in law, alleging the harm consequent upon the interruption to currency transfers.

                           6.

                           Sixth plea in law, alleging non-material harm.


title: Case T-411/11: Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014  — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM) (Community trade mark  — Opposition procedure  — Withdrawal of the opposition  — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/36

         Order of the General Court of 10 March 2014 — Hemofarm v OHIM — Laboratorios Diafarm (HEMOFARM)
   (Case T-411/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 135/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac (Vršac, Serbia) (represented by: D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Laboratorios Diafarm, SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2011 (Case R 298/2010-4), concerning an opposition procedure between Laboratorios Diafarm, SA and Hemofarm AD farmaceutsko-hemijska industrija Vršac.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               All the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-513/07 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2008 — AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(3) — Figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface — Refusal of registration — Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use — Target public and territory to be considered)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2008 — AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-513/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(3) - Figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface - Refusal of registration - Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Target public and territory to be considered)
   (2009/C 69/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA (represented by: T. Koerl, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-141/06 Glaverbel v OHIM by which the Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of Decision R 986/2004-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 March 2006 dismissing the action brought against the examiner's decision refusing registration of a figurative mark representing the texture of a glass surface for certain goods in Classes 19 and 21.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               AGC Flat Glass Europe SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-528/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/42

         Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
   (Case T-528/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/76
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

      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 31 August 2010 in case R 893/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUVO’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 5632948

      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: Community trade mark registration No 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application for all of class 38

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its visual and aural comparison of the signs, (ii) in its comparison of the signs as it refused to attribute any meaning to the trademark of the opposing party, (iii) in its comparison of the services, and (iv) in its assessment of the relevant public.


title: Case T-436/14: Action brought on 9 June 2014  — Neka Novin v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/60

         Action brought on 9 June 2014 — Neka Novin v Council
   (Case T-436/14)
   2014/C 253/81
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Neka Novin (Yusef Abad, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council’s decision to maintain the sanction imposed on the applicant as mentioned in the notice of 15 March 2014;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging an error of law in so far as the grounds given for maintaining the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant are not sufficient.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as the defendant wrongly considered that the applicant had acquired specialised equipment that was of direct application in the Iranian nuclear program.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging infringement of proportionality and the right to property.


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-50/03 (1)

   (2005/C 45/35)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 9 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-50/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Rostok): 1. Simrad GmbH & Co, KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS v Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur Macklenburg-Vorpommern.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.03.