title: Case C-491/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 24 November 2004, in the case of Dollond and Aitchison Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 24 November 2004, in the case of Dollond and Aitchison Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
   (Case C-491/04)
   (2005/C 45/27)
   Language of procedure: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre dated 24 November 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dollond and Aitchison Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the following questions:

               1.

               Is that part of the payment which is made by a customer to D&A Lenses Direct Limited for the supply of specified services by Dolland & Aitchison Ltd or by its franchisees to be included in the total payment for the specified goods so as to be part of the price paid or payable for the specified good within the meaning of Article 29 of Council Regulation no 92/2913 (1) in circumstances where the customer is a private consumer and importer on whose behalf D&A Lenses Direct Ltd accounts for VAT on importation?
               The specified goods are:

                           i)

                           Contact lenses

                           ii)

                           Cleaning Solutions

                           iii)

                           Soaking cases

                     The specified services are:

                           iv)

                           A contact lens examination

                           v)

                           A contact lens consultation

                           vi)

                           Any on-going aftercare required by a customer

               2.

               If the answer to 1 above is No, may the amount of the payment for the specified goods nonetheless be calculated under Article 29 or is it necessary to make such calculation under Article 30 of the said Regulations?

               3.

               In view of the fact that the Channel Islands are part of the customs territory of the Community but are not part of the VAT territory for the purposes of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2), does any of the guidance set out in Case C-349 Card Protection Plan Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise apply for the purposes of determining which part or parts of the transaction comprising the provision of specified services and specified goods fall to be valued for the purposes of applying the Customs Tariff of the European Communities?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2000 in Case T-203/99: Patrizia De Palma and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Leave for trade union purposes)

text:
C 335/42                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
                                                             COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  G. van der Wal, advocate before the Hoge Raad der Nederlan-
                                                                             den, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                      of 20 September 2000                                   Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, and Free Trade Foods
                                                                             NV, established in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, represented
in Case T-203/99: Patrizia De Palma and Others v Com-                        by R. J. van Agteren and M. M. Slotboom, both of the Rotter-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                            dam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                             Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe,
         (Officials — Leave for trade union purposes)                        supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M. A. Fi-
                                                                             erstra) against Commission of the European Communities
                          (2000/C 335/78)                                    (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. Van der Hauwaert), supported by
                                                                             the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az Abad) — application
                                                                             for an order suspending the operation of Commission Regu-
                    (Language of the case: French)                           lation (EC) No 465/2000 of 29 February 2000 introducing
                                                                             safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries
In Case T-203/99: Patrizia De Palma, Jacqueline Escale, Claudi-              and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
ne Hamptaux and Harry Wood, officials of the Commission of                   lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39), or any other form of
the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented                  interim measure of such a kind as to safeguard the applicants’
by Carlos Mourato, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                  interests — the President of the Court of First Instance made
service at the office of Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck,              an order on 12 July 2000 the operative part of which is as
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      follows:
G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application for the annulment of
Commission’s decision of 23 September 1998 refusing to                       1.    Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R are joined for the purposes
grant the aplicants’ request for special leave for trade union                     of the present order.
purposes — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and                        2.    The operation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000
P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for                      of 29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2000, in                            imports from the overseas countries and territories of sugar
which it:                                                                          sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin is suspended
                                                                                in respect of each of the applicants.
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 September 1998
      refusing to grant the aplicants’ request for special leave for trade   3.    The Commission shall determine, up to an amount not
      union purposes.                                                              exceeding 4995 tonnes, the volume of sugar sector products
                                                                                with EC/OCT cumulation of origin which may be imported
2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                      into the Community until 30 September 2000 by each of the
                                                                                applicants and shall lay down the detailed rules to which
                                                                                imports of those products are to be subject.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
                                                                             4.    Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                             INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                           of 12 July 2000
                                                                                of 20 July 2000
in Joined Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R: Rica Foods
(Free Zone) NV and Free Trade Foods NV v Commission                          in Case T-149/00 R, Innova, Centro euromediterraneo per
                 of the European Communities                                 lo sviluppo sostenibile v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(Proceedings for interim relief — Safeguard measures —
Sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin —                             (Procedure for interim relief — No jurisdiction)
         Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/80)
                          (2000/C 335/79)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             In Case T-149/00 R, Innova, Centro euromediterraneo per lo
In Joined Cases T-94/00 R and T-110/00 R, Rica Foods (Free                   sviluppo sostenibile, established in Calatafimi (Italy), represent-
Zone) NV, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by                   ed by D. Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for


title: Case F-63/12: Action brought on 20 June 2012 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/16

         Action brought on 20 June 2012 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-63/12)
   2012/C 311/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the letters by which the defendant is refusing to reimburse, following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union setting aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, the EUR 6 000 which the applicant paid to the defendant in respect of recoverable costs in consequence of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal ruling on costs.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the letters of 4 and 25 May 2012, in so far as the EIB is refusing to reimburse the applicant the sum of EUR 6 000 which it had demanded in respect of costs in a previous case before the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               order the EIB to reimburse without delay that sum plus interest and compensation for currency fluctuations from the date of the payment by the applicant until the date of actual reimbursement;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case T-662/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014  — Hungary v European Commission

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/26

         Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-662/14)
   (2014/C 448/35)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside Article 45(8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation, as regards the part which is worded: ‘- by selecting from the list established pursuant to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 the species that are most suitable from an ecological perspective, thereby excluding species that are clearly not indigenous –’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant argues that the contested Article 45(8) exceeds the limits of the authority conferred by Regulation No 1307/2013/EU (1) and in practice deprives of any substance the authority granted to the Member States by introducing a restrictive requirement reinterpreting the authority given to the Member States by the basic legislation.
   In addition, the applicant takes the view that the preamble to the contested regulation does not state the requisite sufficient and detailed reasons. In its view, a change relating to an authorising provision on such a scale and to such a degree makes it impossible in practice to determine unequivocally precisely on which authorising provision the Commission based its position and to what extent, which makes it almost impossible to conduct the review which is indispensable from the point of view of legal certainty.
   The applicant also pointed out that the legislation adopted by the Commission in practice caused unfair discrimination against those tree species called short rotation coppice or the producers of them. The plantations or planters of both types are in the same position, so that a distinction between them on the basis of the tree species they choose to plant is not justified.
   The applicant also states that throughout the negotiations on the authorising regulation, the Commission also argued against allowing Member States to classify areas planted with short rotation coppice as areas of ecological interest. According to the applicant, all the signs are that the Commission wished to prevent that possibility by means of the contested legislation, thus abusing its power.
   Finally, the applicant considers, inter alia, that the contested regulation breaches the general principle of legal certainty in that, on the one hand, Article 45(8) of the contested regulation is unclear from many points of view, while, on the other hand, the regulation does not provide for a sufficient adaptation period before its entry into force in order to prepare for a change of such importance. In the applicant’s view, it also breaches the principle of legitimate expectations, because the Commission, in establishing the provisions for entry into force, did not take into account the fact that in the agricultural sector a longer period of preparation was required in this situation. In addition, in the applicant’s view, the contested measure also constituted an infringement of the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-72/04 (1)

   (2004/C 314/28)
   By order of 24 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-72/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

      (1)   OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-382/11: Order of the General Court of 9 July 2012 — Pigui v Commission (Action for failure to act — Position taken — Application for directions to be issued — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/9

         Order of the General Court of 9 July 2012 — Pigui v Commission
   (Case T-382/11) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Position taken - Application for directions to be issued - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 273/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cristina Pigui (Strejnic, Romania) (represented by: M. Alexe, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D. Roussanov, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the European Commission unlawfully failed to define its position on the applicant’s request, first, to initiate, pursuant to Articles 4 and 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 45), an investigation into the Online Master organised by the European Online Academy (EOA), founded by the Centre international de formation européenne (CIFE), in cooperation with the Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Cologne (Germany), and, second, to take all measures provided for by Article 6 of that decision in order to prevent further illegal conduct, to restore the situation ab initio of those persons affected by such illegal conduct or, at least, in so far as the applicant is concerned, and, lastly, to withdraw the funding for that Master if it fails to comply with key human rights principles, to which reference is made in Article 1(3)(i) of that decision, and relevant principles of European Union law.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Cristina Pigui shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case F-53/11: Action brought on 2 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/37

         Action brought on 2 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-53/11)
   2011/C 186/71
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to list the applicant as a successful candidate in competition EPSO/AD/168/09-PL.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/168/09-PL not to list the applicant as a successful candidate in that competition;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA (ENU) v. Commission of the European Communities (EAEC - Actions for annulment of measures - Supply - Right of option and exclusive right of the Euratom Supply Agency to conclude contracts for the supply of ores, source materials and special fissile materials - Balancing of supply and demand - Infringement of the rules of the Treaty - Community preference - None - Commission instruction to the Supply Agency - Principles of good faith and legitimate expectations - Non-contractual liability)

text:
28 . 10. 95           I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/ 11
of Article 2 1 5 of the EC Treaty — the Court of First Instance       3 . orders the Commission to pay its own costs.
( Second Chamber ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September             (>) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
1995 , in which it:
1 . dismisses the application;
2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1995
3 . orders the French Republic, intervener, to bear its own
      costs .                                                         in Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional
                                                                      de Urânio SA ( ENU ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1 )
(') OJ No C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                       (EAEC — Actions for annulment ofmeasures — Supply —
                                                                      Right of option and exclusive right of the Euratom Supply
                                                                      Agency to conclude contracts for the supply of ores, source
                                                                      materials and special fissile materials — Balancing ofsupply
                                                                      and demand -— Infringement of the rules of the Treaty —
                                                                      Communitypreference — None — Commission instruction
                                                                      to the Supply Agency — Principles of good faith and
                                                                           legitimate expectations — Non-contractual liability)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                         ( 95/C 286/27 )
                       of 14 September 1995
in Case T-171/94 : Descom Scales Manufacturing Co Ltd v.                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
              Council of the European Union ( ] )
                                                                      In Joined Cases T-458/93 and T-523/93 Empresa Nacional
                           ( 95/C 286/26 )                            de Urânio SA ( ENU ), established at Urgeiriça, Nelas
                                                                      ( Portugal ), represented by João Luis dos Reis Mota de
                                                                      Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                 (Language of the case: French)                       Luxembourg at the Office of Joaquim Calvo Basáran, 34
                                                                      Boulevard Ernest Feltgen v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and Jürgen
In Case T-171 /94 : Descom Scales Manufacturing Co. Ltd, a            Grunwald ) — application for annulment of the
company with its registered office at Seoul, represented by           Commission's decision of 19 July 1993 , on a procedure for
Pierre Didier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service       the application of the second paragraph of Article 53 of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Laurent Mosar, 8 Rue                 EAEC Treaty, rejecting requests which the applicant had
Notre-Dame , against the Council of the European Union                submitted to the Commission in a letter of 21 December
(Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Jorge Monteiro and Philip               1990 in order to resolve the problem of the disposal of its
Bentley ), supported by the Commission of the European                uranium production, and for a declaration that the
Communities ( Agent: Marc L. F. De Pauw ) — application               European Atomic Energy Community is liable for the
for the annulment, in relation to the applicant, of Council           damage which the applicant is alleged to have incurred as a
Regulation (EEC ) No 2887/93 of 20 October 1993                       result of an alleged breach of the rules of the Treaty — the
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended
certain electronic weighing scales originating in Singapore           composition ) composed of D. P. M. Barringtom, A. Saggio,
and the Republic of Korea ( OJ 1993 L 263 , p. 1 ), the Court         H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),           Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1995 , in
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, R.                 which it :
Schintgen, R. García-Valdecasas, C. W. Bellamy and P.
Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in which                  1 . dismisses the applications;
 it :
                                                                       2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
 1 . dismisses the action;
                                                                       (') OJ No C 316 , 3 . 12 . 1992 and OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1995 .
 2 . orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the
      Council's costs, including those relating to the
      application for interim measures;


title: Case T-633/11: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014  — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council (Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Non-cooperation — Necessary information — Time-limits provided — Facts available — Article 18(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014 — Guangdong Kito Ceramics and Others v Council
   (Case T-633/11) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Non-cooperation - Necessary information - Time-limits provided - Facts available - Article 18(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   2014/C 212/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Guangdong Kito Ceramics Co. Ltd (Foshan, China); Jingdezhen Kito Ceramic Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen, China); Jingdezhen Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Jingdezhen); Zhaoqing Lehua Ceramic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd (Sihui, China) (represented by: M. Sánchez Rydelski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and subsequently by D. Geradin, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents); Cerame-Unie AISBL, (Brussels, Belgium); Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER) (Castellón de la Plana, Spain); Confindustria Ceramica (Sassuolo, Italy); Casalgrande Padana SpA (Casalgrande, Italy); and Etruria Design Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Cerame-Unie AISBL, Associación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-233/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2012 — Nike International v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark JUMPMAN — Earlier national word mark JUMP — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2012 — Nike International v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)
   (Case T-233/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark JUMPMAN - Earlier national word mark JUMP - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Çatalca-Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 738/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Intermar Simanto Nahmias and Nike International Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-433/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — TTNB v OHIM — March Juan (Tila March) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Tila March — Earlier national figurative mark CARMEN MARCH — Relative ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2011 — TTNB v OHIM — March Juan (Tila March)
   (Case T-433/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Tila March - Earlier national figurative mark CARMEN MARCH - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 160/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: TTNB (Paris, France) (represented initially by J.-M. Moiroux, then J.-M. Moiroux and C. Beudard, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Carmen March Juan (Madrid, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 August 2009 (Case R 1538/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Carmen March Juan and TTNB.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders TTNB to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-213/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/41

         Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FREE STYLE)
   (Case T-213/16)
   (2016/C 243/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FREE STYLE’— EU trade mark No 4 761 731

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 387/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

   The pleas in law and principal arguments are those put forward in Case T-212/16, El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe).


Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0009

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Hérasdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court) by decision of that court of 12 November 1997 in the case of Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v. Government of Iceland (Case E-9/97)

Official Journal C 084 , 19/03/1998 P. 0013 - 0013

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court) by decision of that court of 12 November 1997 in the case of Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v. Government of Iceland (Case E-9/97) (98/C 84/05)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 November 1997 of Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 November 1997, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v. Government of Iceland, on the following questions:1. Is the act referred to in point 24 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980, as amended by Council Directive 87/164/EEC of 2 March 1987), in particular Article 1(2) and Article 10 of the Directive, to be interpreted to mean that national legislation may provide that an employee may be precluded from receiving payment of a wage claim against an insolvency estate from the State's Wage Guarantee Fund on grounds of family relation to an owner of 40 % of the shares in the insolvent company? The relevant relation in the case at hand is collateral, i.e. siblings?2. If the answer to question 1 is to the effect that such an employee may not be precluded from receiving payment of a wage claim, is the State liable vis-à-vis the employee for not having adapted national legislation when it became party to the EEA Agreement, so that the employee has a legal right to the payment of the wage


title: Case C-119/08: Order of the Court of 5 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas) — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — First VAT Directive — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 33(1) — Concept of turnover taxes — Tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/16

         Order of the Court of 5 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas) — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-119/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - First VAT Directive - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Concept of ‘turnover taxes’ - Tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads)
   2009/C 113/32
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties

      Applicant: Mechel Nemunas UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1) — Lithuanian road tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads

      Operative part of the order

   Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax such as the levy on revenue laid down by the Lithuanian Law on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme (Lietuvos Respublikos kelių priežiūros ir plėtros programos finansavimo įstatymas).

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case C-651/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency, Assogalvanica and Others (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) — Article 58(2) — Authorisation — Substances of very high concern — Exemption — Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2017 — Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and Others v European Commission, European Chemicals Agency, Assogalvanica and Others
   (Case C-651/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Article 58(2) - Authorisation - Substances of very high concern - Exemption - Regulation amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation))
   (2017/C 293/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO), Adolf Krämer GmbH & Co. KG, AgO Argentum GmbH and Others (full list included in the appeal) (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents), Assogalvanica, Ecometal, Comité européen des traitements de surfaces (CETS) and Others (full list included in the appeal) (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Intervener in support of the European Commission: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Traband, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-Verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the other appellants whose names are listed in Annex I to the present judgment to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case C-313/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Sylvia Jansen

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Sylvia Jansen
   (Case C-313/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Defendant: Sylvia Jansen

      Questions referred

      Question 1

               (a)

               When conducting a legal assessment as to whether an agreement for the renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified in a particular case for objective reasons within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, is it compatible with the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement to have reference only to circumstances obtaining at the date of conclusion of that renewal agreement without having regard to how many fixed-term contracts have already preceded that agreement, or

               (b)

               Does the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, which is to prevent abuse arising from the use of consecutive short-term employment contracts, necessitate the imposition of stricter requirements in relation to ‘objective reasons’ the greater the number of successive fixed-term employment contracts that have already preceded the one that is to be assessed or the longer the period during which the employee concerned has already been employed under successive fixed-term contracts?

      Question 2

   Does Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work preclude the application of a provision of national law such as Paragraph 14(1)(7) of the Law on part-time working and fixed-term contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge, ‘the TzBfG’) which justifies successive fixed terms of employment contracts in the public sector alone for the ‘objective reason’ that the employee is paid out of budgetary funds provided for fixed-term employment, whereas in the case of employers in the private sector such economic reasons are not recognised as ‘objective reasons’?

      Question 3

               (a)

               Is the provision on fixed-term contracts referred to in the second question (Paragraph 14(1)(7) TzBfG) compatible with the framework agreement if the budgetary rule to which Paragraph 14(1)(7) TzBfG refers constitutes a sufficiently specific purpose for the fixed term with a particular connection to the activity in question and the conditions under which it is carried out (see second paragraph of the summary of the judgment in Case C-212/04 Adeneler [2006] ECR I 6057)?

         If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:

               (b)

               Is there such a sufficiently specific purpose if the budgetary rule, such as Paragraph 7(3) of the Gesetz über die Feststellung der Haushaltspläne des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Law determining the budget of the Land of North-Rhine Westphalia, ‘HG 2004/2005’) in this case, merely provides that the budgetary funds are intended for a fixed-term activity as ‘temporary staff’?

         If Question 3(b) is answered in the affirmative:

               (c)

               Does this apply even if the activity of ‘temporary staff’ in this sense is understood to mean not only an activity that serves to cover either a temporary increase in work or the temporary loss of a core member of staff but also where the term ‘temporary staff’ is also deemed applicable if the employee is paid out of budgetary funds that are available because of the temporary loss of a core member of staff working in the same department, although the ‘temporary staff’ member is employed to do work that is categorised as falling within the ambit of the employer’s fixed and permanent needs and has no substantive connection with the activity of the core member of staff lost, or

               (d)

               Does interpretation of the term ‘temporary staff’ in the manner described in Question 3(c) run counter to the spirit and purpose of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is to prevent abuse arising from the use of consecutive short-term employment contracts, and to the principle, laid down in Angelidaki (second paragraph of the summary of the judgment in Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 [2009] ECR I 3071), that Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work precludes the application of national legislation ‘in such a way that the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector is deemed to be justified by “objective reasons” within the meaning of that clause solely on the ground that those contracts are founded on legal provisions allowing them to be renewed in order to meet certain temporary needs when, in fact, those needs are fixed and permanent’?

      Question 4

   Is a Member State in breach of Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work if it introduces into its national legislation implementing Directive 1999/70/EC a budgetary reason for a fixed term such as that described in Question 2, which is of general application to the whole of its public sector but under its national legal system prior to the adoption of Directive 1999/70/EC only existed in comparable form in small pockets of the public sector (higher education)? Does such a breach mean that the national rule can no longer be applied?


title: Case C-168/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid by order of that court of 15 February 2005 in the proceedings between Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Movil Milenium, S.L.

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid by order of that court of 15 February 2005 in the proceedings between Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Movil Milenium, S.L.
   (Case C-168/05)
   (2005/C 155/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (Spain) of 15 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Elisa María Mostaza Claro and Centro Movil Milenium, S.L. on the following question:
   May the protection of consumers under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts require the court hearing an action for annulment of an arbitration award to determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and to annul the award if it finds that that arbitration agreement contains an unfair term to the consumer's detriment, when that issue is raised in the action for annulment but was not raised by the consumer in the arbitration proceedings?

      (1)  OJ L 95 of 21. 4. 1993, p. 29.


title: Case C-226/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer
   (Case C-226/16)
   (2016/C 251/13)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eni SpA, Eni Gas & Power France SA, Union professionnelle des industries privées du gaz (Uprigaz)

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 (1) be interpreted as constituting an obstacle to the imposition by a Member State on natural gas suppliers of additional obligations resulting from the inclusion among ‘protected customers’, whose consumption contributes to defining the limits of the storage obligations designed to ensure continuity of supply, of customers who are not mentioned in Article 2(1) of that regulation?

               2.

               Must Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 be interpreted as constituting an obstacle to the imposition by a Member State on natural gas suppliers of obligations relating to the volumes of gas stored and the withdrawal rates attached thereto, and to the holding of storage capacities acquired by virtue of rights reflecting the obligation to hold stocks on the territory of that Member State, whilst at the same time providing that the Minister, in assessing a supplier’s storage capacities, is to take account of the other regulatory instruments available to that supplier?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC (OJ 2010 L 295, p. 1).


title: Case T-190/07: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — KEK Diavlos v European Commission (Financial assistance for the European citizen information programme (Prince) — Project concerning the preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools — Decision ordering reimbursement of the advance paid — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — KEK Diavlos v European Commission
   (Case T-190/07) (1)

   (Financial assistance for the European citizen information programme (Prince) - Project concerning the preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools - Decision ordering reimbursement of the advance paid - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment)
   2010/C 113/63
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: KEK Diavlos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Chatzimichalis)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and S. Petrova, Agents, assisted by E. Politis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 465 Final of 23 February 2006 ordering the reimbursement of the advance, together with interest, paid under a contract for financial assistance, concluded under the Prince programme, for an operation entitled ‘The EURO — its genuine and essential impact on school children’ (Eurogenesis), concerning the preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders KEK Diavlos to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007


title: Case T-103/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Shang v OHIM (justing) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark ‘justing’ — Earlier national figurative mark JUSTING — Seniority of the earlier national mark claimed — Signs not identical — Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2012 — Shang v OHIM (justing)
   (Case T-103/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark ‘justing’ - Earlier national figurative mark JUSTING - Seniority of the earlier national mark claimed - Signs not identical - Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 65/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tiantian Shang (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Salerni, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 December 2010 (Case R 1388/2010-2), relating to a claim of seniority of the national figurative mark JUSTING held by Mrs Tiantian Shang.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mrs Tiantian Shang to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.


title: Case T-353/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2007 — Ontex v OHIM — Curon Medical (CURON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CURON — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark EURON — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 February 2007 — Ontex v OHIM — Curon Medical (CURON)
   (Case T-353/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CURON - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark EURON - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 82/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ontex NV (Buggenhout, Belgium) (represented by: M. Du Tré, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Curon Medical Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States) (represented by: C. Algar and J. Cohen, solicitors, and T. Ludbrook, barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2004 (Case R 22/2004-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ontex NV and Curon Medical, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-522/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol — Spain) — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia SA v Concello de Ferrol (Request for a preliminary ruling — Competition — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Concept of ‘State aid’  — Property tax on immovable property — Tax exemption)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol — Spain) — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia SA v Concello de Ferrol
   (Case C-522/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Competition - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Property tax on immovable property - Tax exemption))
   (2014/C 439/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia SA

      Defendant: Concello de Ferrol

      Operative part of the judgment

   On a proper construction of Article 107(1) TFEU, the exemption from property tax of a plot of land belonging to the State and made available to an undertaking whose capital is wholly State-owned and which produces, from that plot of land, goods and services that may be traded between Member States on markets open to competition may constitute State aid prohibited by that provision. It is for the referring court, however, to determine whether, in the light of all the relevant evidence in the dispute before it, assessed by reference to the interpretative guidance provided by the Court of Justice of the European Union, that tax exemption falls to be categorised as State aid within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-318/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/70

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)
   (Case T-318/06)
   (2006/C 326/145)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

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

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

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 notified to the applicant 4 October 2006, in cancellation proceedings No 827C (Case No R 947/2005-1) and consequently declare Community trade mark No 573 592‘GENERAL OPTICA’ filed on 10 July 1997 and registered on 13 September 1999, as invalid, or in the alternative, revoked;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘GENERAL OPTICA’ for services in class 42 (Opticians' services) — Community trade mark No 573 592

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: General Óptica SA

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

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

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

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


title: Case T-781/16: Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Puma and Others v Commission

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/47

         Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Puma and Others v Commission
   (Case T-781/16)
   (2017/C 014/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) and 8 others (represented by: E. Vermulst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co. Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co. Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 225, p. 52);

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 245, p. 16);

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 of 28 September 2016 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 262, p. 4); and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have the legal competence to adopt the contested regulations in the first place.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide the precise legal basis for the adoption of the contested regulations in violation of Article 296 TFUE and infringed the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection of the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the reopening of the concluded footwear proceeding and the retroactive imposition of the expired anti-dumping duty on the applicant’s suppliers (i) lacks legal basis, is based on a manifest error in the application of Article 266 TFUE and the Basic Regulation and infringed the latter, (ii) is inconsistent with the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-retroactivity; and (iii) is inconsistent with Article 266 TFUE, infringed Article 5(4) TFUE and is based on a misuse of powers by the Commission.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the retroactive imposition of the duty through the three contested regulations is discriminatory vis-à-vis the applicants.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the manner of assessment of the market economy and individual treatment claims of the applicants’ suppliers was discriminatory and based on a misuse of power by the Commission.


title: Case C-362/09 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2009 by Athinaïki Techniki AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2009 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/13

         Appeal brought on 11 September 2009 by Athinaïki Techniki AE against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 June 2009 in Case T-94/05 Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-362/09 P)
   2009/C 312/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward four pleas in support of its appeal.
   By the first plea, it is claimed that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the earlier case-law of the Court of Justice with regard to the conditions governing the unlawfulness of the withdrawal of an administrative act. In order for the withdrawal to be valid, the unlawfulness of the act must have been established and it must have been revoked within a reasonable period. However, in the present case, the Commission’s act was withdrawn more than four years after its adoption and without any reasons being given.
   By its second plea, Athinaïki Techniki submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to rule on the issue which it had raised concerning the misuse of powers. By withdrawing the decision at issue, the Commission was seeking not to withdraw the act in question so as to comply with the principle of legality, but to avoid review by the Community judicature.
   Third, the appellant states that it still has an interest in obtaining a judgment annulling the decision of the Commission that is at issue, contrary to what was held in the order under appeal. The consequences of the Commission’s withdrawal of the act in question are not, in fact, confined merely to the reopening of the preliminary investigation procedure. A judgment annulling a decision gives rise to an obligation on the part of the Commission either to open the formal State aid investigation procedure, or to invite the Member State concerned to cancel or modify the aid in question. The Court of First Instance therefore erred in law when it took the view that the only consequence of annulment of the decision at issue was the obligation to reopen the preliminary investigation procedure.
   Finally, the appellant takes the view that the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the force of res judicata attaching to the judgment of the Court of Justice in the related Case C-521/06 P. It is apparent from that judgment that the Commission could not persist in its failure to take administrative action in the context of the State aid investigation procedure. However, by withdrawing the decision at issue, the Commission effectively did just that — failed to act — and the Court of First Instance committed a further error of law by failing to criticise the Commission at all.


18.3.2000             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-337/99 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-436/99 P (1)
                        (2000/C 79/42)                                                      (2000/C 79/45)
By order of 9 December 1999 the President of the Court of          By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-337/99: Commission of the European       from the register of Case C-436/99 P: Karl Meyer v Commission
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                  of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-252/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/43)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/46)
By order of 12 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 18 January 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-115/99: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-252/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/44)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-272/99 (1)
By order of 13 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                   (2000/C 79/47)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/98: Commission of the              By order of 19 January 2000 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-272/99: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                          European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case C-483/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena n °2 (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco S.A. v Steluta Grigore

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena no 2 (Spain) lodged on 10 September 2013 — Unicaja Banco S.A. v Steluta Grigore
   (Case C-483/13)
   2013/C 352/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 2 de Marchena

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unicaja Banco S.A.

      Defendant: Steluta Grigore

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, and in order to ensure the protection of consumers and users in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must a national court, when it finds there to be an unfair default-interest clause in mortgage loans, declare the clause void and not binding or, on the contrary, must it moderate the interest clause, referring the matter back to the party seeking enforcement or lender for recalculation of the interest?

               2.

               Is the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 nothing more than a clear limitation on the protection of consumer interests, by implicitly imposing upon the court the obligation to moderate a default-interest clause which is tainted by unfairness, recalculating the stipulated interest and maintaining in force a stipulation which was unfair, instead of declaring the clause to be void and not binding upon the consumer?

               3.

               Does the Second Transitional Provision of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013 contravene Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Article 6(1) thereof, by preventing application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in relation to consumer protection and avoiding application of the penalty of nullity and lack of binding force in respect of default-interest clauses tainted by unfairness and stipulated in mortgage loans entered into prior to the entry into force of Law 1/2013 of 14 May 2013?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case T-258/13: Action brought on 3 May 2013 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/42

         Action brought on 3 May 2013 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — KBT (ARKTIS)
   (Case T-258/13)
   2013/C 207/70
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita (Locarno, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 March 2013 in Case R 2133/2011-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: the word mark ‘ARKTIS’ for goods in Classes 20 and 24 — Community trade mark No 2 818 680

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commercial sociétá in accomandita

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case C-140/03 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Opticians — Conditions of establishment — Establishment and operation of opticians' shops — Restrictions — Justification — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 21 April 2005
   in Case C-140/03 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Opticians - Conditions of establishment - Establishment and operation of opticians' shops - Restrictions - Justification - Principle of proportionality)
   (2005/C 143/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-140/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 March 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by enacting and maintaining in force Law No 971/79 on the exercise of the profession of optician and on shops for the sale of optical articles, which does not permit a qualified optician as a natural person to operate more than one optician's shop, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

               2.

               Declares that by enacting and maintaining in force Law No 971/79 and Law No 2646/98 on the development of a national social security system and other provisions, under which the establishment by a legal person of an optician's shop in Greece is subject to the following conditions:

                           —

                           authorisation for the establishment and operation of the optician's shop must have been granted to a recognised optician who is a natural person, the person holding the authorisation to operate the shop must hold at least 50 % of the company's share capital and must participate at least to that extent in the profits and losses of the company, and the company must be in the form of a collective or limited partnership, and

                           —

                           the optician in question may participate at most in one other company owning an optician's shop, subject to the condition that the authorisation for the establishment and operation of that shop is in the name of another authorised optician,

                     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 48 EC;

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.


title: Case T-80/06: Action brought on  3 March 2006  — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/25

         Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Budapesti Erőmű v Commission
   (Case T-80/06)
   (2006/C 108/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Budapesti Erőmű ‘Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság’ (Budapest, Hungary) [represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, C. Arhold, K. Struckmann, lawyers]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Commission to open the formal investigation procedure in Case State aid C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian Stranded Costs — of 9 November 2005, or in the alternative to annul the Decision as far as the power purchase agreements concluded by the applicant are concerned;

               —

               to award the applicant the costs of the present action;

               —

               to take such other or further action as justice may require.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a district heating supplier and electricity generator in Hungary. In the contested decision, the Commission decided to open a formal investigation procedure into alleged new State aid in the form of power purchase agreements concluded between Hungarian electricity generators and the public Hungarian transmission operator (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission lacked competence to take the contested decision. According to the applicant, it follows from Annex 4, Chapter 3, Section 1 of the Accession Treaty (2) and Article 1(b) of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (3) that the Commission only has jurisdiction over aid measures which are still applicable after the date of accession of a new Member State. The applicant submits that the power purchase agreements were concluded prior to accession and are not still applicable after accession.
   The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission committed a manifest error of law and appreciation by opening the formal investigation procedure without having objective grounds for finding that the applicant's power purchase agreements contain State aid. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to assess the nature of the applicant's power purchase agreements in the light of the circumstances at the time they were concluded, made an inadequate assessment of the notion of economic advantage and of the notion of distortion of competition and impact on trade within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   The applicant also submits that the Commission has erred in finding that the power purchase agreements contain new aid, as they were concluded prior to the opening of the Hungarian electricity market.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the contested decision's reasoning is inadequate.

      (1)  State aid — Hungary — State aid No C 41/2005 (ex NN 49/2005) — Hungarian Stranded Costs — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2005 C 324, p. 12)

      (2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - Annex IV: List referred to in Article 22 of the Act of Accession - 3. Competition policy (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 797)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1)


title: Case T-154/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/27

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology v Commission
   (Case T-154/13)
   2013/C 123/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jiangsu Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd (Yixing, China) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision set out in its letter of 3rd January 2013 deciding that the applicants market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim will no longer be considered;

               —

               Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing and failing to respect the applicant’s rights to the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicant claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing the principles of legal certainty and the non-retroactive application of European Union law by unlawfully terminating the applicants’ MET claim thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.


title: Case T-229/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Banking Authority

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/31

         Action brought on 4 May 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Banking Authority
   (Case T-229/15)
   (2015/C 262/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the EBA which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 02/03/2015 from the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority, whereby the EBA rejected the applicants’ tender with respect to Lot 1 within the framework of the restricted tendering procedure 2014/S 158 283576 (EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT), titled ‘Supply of interim staff, Lot No 1: Supply of interim staff for Information Technology’;

               —

               order the EBA to compensate the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place in Lot 1 of the EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT framework agreement, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at three hundred thousand euros (EUR 3 00  000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate; and

               —

               order the EBA to pay the applicants’ costs in full.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea claims a breach by the EBA of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with respect to the assessment of the applicants’ technical tender.

               2.

               The second plea claims an infringement of the contractual documents and of EU law in respect that there were manifest errors of assessment.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - General competitions - Non-registration on the list of successful candidates - Letter correcting a letter initially sent to the candidate - Legal relationship between the institution and a candidate in a competition - Obligation to provide a statement of reasons - Damages for material and non-material damage - Permissibility)

text:
C 94/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European Parliament
                      of 29 January 1998                             (Agents: Manfred Peters and Evelyn Waldherr) Ð
in Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato v. Commission             application for annulment, first, of the decision of the
               of the European Communities (1)                       Parliament of 1 December 1995 assigning the applicant to
(Officials Ð General competitions Ð Non-registration on              non-active status with effect from of 30 November 1995
the list of successful candidates Ð Letter correcting a              and all subsequent decisions relating thereto and, secondly,
letter initially sent to the candidate Ð Legal relationship          the decision of the Parliament of 3 September 1996 to
between the institution and a candidate in a competition             change the date when the decision of 1 December 1995
Ð Obligation to provide a statement of reasons Ð                     was to take effect to 31 January 1996, the Court of First
Damages for material and non-material damage Ð                       Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
                         Permissibility)                             President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                     H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 1998,
                          (98/C 94/56)                               the operative part of which is as follows:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     1. The application is dismissed.
In Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato, residing at
Foggia (Italy), represented initially by Nicola De Perna, of
the Foggia Bar, and subsequently by Alberto Tedeschi, of             2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
the Bari Bar, and Cino Fiori, of the Foggia Bar, with an
address for service at 13 Via Saseo, Foggia, against the             (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for, first, a finding that
the letter whereby the chairman of the selection board for
competition COM/B/794 informed the applicant that he
was registered on the list of successful candidates in the
aforementioned competition is valid and, in the
alternative, for the annulment of the illegal stages of that           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
competition and, secondly, a claim for damages to                                         of 17 February 1998
compensate him for material and non-material damage
suffered Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             in Case T-183/96: E v. Economic and Social Committee of
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                               the European Communities (1)
Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,            (Officials Ð Freedom of expression in relation to
gave a judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:                     hierarchical superiors Ð Duty of loyalty and obligation to
                                                                     uphold the dignity of the service Ð Disciplinary measure
1. dismissed the claims in the application;
                                                                         Ð Relegation in step Ð Principle of proportionality)
2. ordered the Commission to pay to the applicant BEF                                         (98/C 94/58)
     30 000 by way of compensation for non-material
     damage;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3. ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-183/96: E, a former official of the Economic
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
                                                                     and Social Committee of the European Communities,
                                                                     residing in Brussels, represented initially by Guy San
                                                                     BartolomeÂ Sarrey, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by
                                                                     Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer, of the Brussels Bar, and Pierre
                                                                     Demolin, of the Mons Bar, with an address for service in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Kaufhold, 7
                                                                     Côte d'Eich, v. Economic and Social Committee of the
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Moises Bermejo Garde
                      of 13 January 1998                             and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of
       in Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger v. European                 the decision of the Secretary-General of the Economic and
                         Parliament (1)                              Social Committee imposing on the applicant the
                                                                     disciplinary measure of relegation in step Ð the Court of
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð                  First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
Decision to assign to non-active status Ð Article 41 of the          President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
Staff Regulations Ð Duty to have regard to officials'                Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                            interests)                               a judgment on 17 February 1998, in which it:
                          (98/C 94/57)
                (Language of the case: French)                       1. annuls the decision of the Economic and Social
                                                                         Committee of 18 January 1996 imposing on the
In Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger, resident at Heffingen                 applicant the disciplinary measure of relegation in
(Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                   step;


title: Case T-282/13: Action brought on 22 May 2013 — Iglotex/OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/52

         Action brought on 22 May 2013 — Iglotex/OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)
   (Case T-282/13)
   2013/C 207/84
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Iglotex S.A. (Skórcz, Poland) (represented by: I. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Iglo Foods Group Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Opposition Division;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘IGLOTEX’ — Community trade mark application No 9 283 367 for goods in classes 29 and 30

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘IGLO’ for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 5 740 238

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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