title: Case C-157/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-156/98 between RJB Mining PLC and Commission of the European Communities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany

text:
14.7.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 200/39
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic
van Beroep by order of 21 March 2001 in the disputes                   of Germany against the judgment delivered on 31 January
between R. P. van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekering-                   2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
en UA and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van                       of the European Communities in Case T-156/98 between
                   Wegberg-van Brederode                               RJB Mining PLC and Commission of the European Com-
                                                                       munities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Fed-
                                                                                eral Republic of Germany
                        (Case C-156/01)
                                                                                (Case C-157/01 P)
                        (2001/C 200/71)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/72)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 21 March 2001 by the
Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2001,             by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
for a preliminary ruling in the disputes between R. P. van der         European Communities in Case T-156/98 RJB Mining PLC and
Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, a mutual guarantee                 Commission of the European Communities, supported by
society, and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van                    RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany,
Wegberg-van Brederode on the following questions:                      was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Ministerialrat Wolf-Dieter Plessing,
1.   Does Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)          Oberregierungsrat Dr Thomas Jürgensen, Bundesministerium
     also apply to (a member of the family of) a pensioner who         der Finanzen, and Martina Maier, Haarmann Hemmelrath,
     is entitled under Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to          Paris.
     receive benefits from the institution of the place of
     residence, (in the present cases from the French or the
     Spanish sickness assurance funds respectively), those             The appellant
     benefits being chargeable to the institution competent in
     accordance with Article 28(2)(a) of Regulation                    1.    claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of
     No 1408/71, that is to say the Netherlands sickness                     the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001
     assurance fund, in a situation in which the pensioner (or               [T-156/98 (1)] in so far as it held that the application was
     a member of his family) travels to the competent Member                 founded;
     State in order to receive medical treatment?
                                                                       2.    continues to seek the form of order sought at First
                                                                             Instance;
2.   If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, which insti-
     tution is responsible for granting the authorisation
                                                                       3.    claims that the applicant at First Instance should be
     referred to in Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71?
                                                                             ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
3.   If the answer to Question 1 is negative, do the provisions
     of Article 21 or those of Article 31 of Regulation
     No 1408/71 govern entitlement to benefits of (a member            Pleas in law and main arguments
     of the family) of a pensioner who is entitled under
     Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to receive benefits
     from the institution of the place of residence, (in the           —     The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
     present cases from the French or the Spanish sickness                   because it declared the application admissible even
     assurance funds respectively), those benefits being charge-             though the applicant, not being in an actual or potential
     able to the institution competent in accordance with                    competitive position, cannot be regarded as individually
     Article 28(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, that is to say               concerned by the contested decision and because the
     the Netherlands sickness assurance fund, in a situation                 applicant, inter alia in view of the commitment given by
     where the person concerned is staying in the territory of               RAG in the framework of the merger, had no interest in
     the competent State?                                                    bringing proceedings.
                                                                       —     The CFI misapplied Article 66(2) of the ECSC Treaty in
                                                                             that it incorrectly assumed that the Commission, when
                                                                             carrying out the analysis of competition under
                                                                             Article 66(2) ECSC, could not fail to examine whether,
(1) OJ 1996 L 323, p. 38.
                                                                             and if so to what extent, the financial and thus economic
                                                                             whether, and if so to what extent, the financial and thus
                                                                             economic power of the merged entity was strengthened
                                                                             by all the elements which might constitute State aid,
                                                                             in particular, however, benefits which may have been
                                                                             contained in the DEM 1 purchase price for SBW.
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/40               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14.7.2001
—    As regards examination of the merits, the CFI failed to             —     order the European Commission to compensate him for
     comply with its obligation to stay within the limits of                   material and non-material damage;
     the application and exceeded them, thereby infringing
     Community law.                                                      —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—    The CFI also infringed Article 33(1), second sentence,
     ECSC in that it failed to examine whether there had been
     a manifest failure by the Commission to observe a                   Pleas and main arguments
     relevant provision and failed to appreciate that the
     application did not even satisfy the requirement to show            —     Breach of the right to a fair hearing: Before the decision
     the alleged manifestness of the infringement.                             was taken to transfer him, the appellant was approached
                                                                               in vague and general terms by his line manager for alleged
—    Furthermore, the CFI infringed Article 33(1) ECSC in so
                                                                               lack of care and attention in his work, which was
     far as it annulled the contested decision as a whole and
                                                                               subsequently contradicted in his staff report. It was thus
     not merely with regard to the part of the decision with
                                                                               that, without being heard beforehand and without the
     which the CFI found fault, namely the authorisation of
                                                                               chance to make any comments, a decision to transfer him
     the merger of RAG with SBW, not the merger with
                                                                               was taken by the appointing authority.
     Preussag Anthrazit GmbH.
—    Finally, the CFI infringed its duty to state reasons, because
     it did not adequately deal with the arguments submitted
     by the Commission and the interveners in their pleadings
     and at the hearing, even though they related to main
     grounds of the decision.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                         Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of the Austrian Republic by
                                                                         decision of that Court of 14 March 2001 in the case of
                                                                         Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission
                                                                         in Österreich (Works council of the Representation of
                                                                         the European Commission in Austria) v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli
against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the                                             (Case C-165/01)
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco
 Campoli and Commission of the European Communities                                               (2001/C 200/74)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (Case C-161/01 P)
                                                                         European Communities by a decision of the Oberster Gericht-
                                                                         shof of 14 March 2001, which was received at the Court
                         (2001/C 200/73)                                 Registry on 18 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in
                                                                         Österreich (Works council of the Representation of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001                 European Commission in Austria) v Commission of the
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities, on the following questions:
European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco
Campoli and the Commission of the European Communities                   1.    Is Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        Servants of the European Communities [Article 3 of
Communities on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli, represent-                     Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of
ed by S. Diana, lawyer, with an address for service in Brussels.               29 February 1968 (1)], under which the conditions of
                                                                               employment of local staff, in particular: (a) the manner of
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    their engagement and termination of their contract, (b)
                                                                               their leave, and (c) their remuneration is to be determined
—    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  by each institution in accordance with current rules and
     6 March 2001 in Case T-100/00;                                            practice in the place where they are to perform their
                                                                               duties, to be understood as a reference to the relevant
—    annul the two decisions taken by Mr Lemmel (No 05266                      national law on employment, which, in the case of
     of 11 June 1999 and of 2 December 1999), concerning                       Austria, also requires the application of the law on labour
     the removal of Franco Campoli and the appointment of                      relations in the workplace laid down in Part II of the
     Chantal Bruetschy to the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and                    Austrian Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz (Labour Constitution
     scientific and technical aspects’ unit;                                   Act)?


title: Case T-635/14: Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/28

         Action brought on 22 August 2014 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)
   (Case T-635/14)
   2014/C 361/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary)

      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 23 June 2014 given in Case R 1974/2013-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘URB’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 35, 37 and 39-42 — the Community trade mark No 8 6 56  605

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(b) CTMR and relative grounds for invalidity under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR

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

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) CTMR, Article 8(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR and Article 53(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-309/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Bergamo — Italy) — D.I.A. Srl, in liquidation v Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Bergamo — Italy) — D.I.A. Srl, in liquidation v Cartiere Paolo Pigna SpA
   (Case C-309/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/67)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.


title: Case T-54/16: Action brought on 5 February 2016 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/34

         Action brought on 5 February 2016 — Netguru v EUIPO (NETGURU)
   (Case T-54/16)
   (2016/C 111/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Netguru sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘NETGURU’ — Application for registration No 12 994 166

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 December 2015 in Case R 144/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 18 December 2015 in Case R 144/2015-5;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Breach of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-1/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — System of export refunds on agricultural products — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Furnishing of proof of export of the products — Production of equivalent proof — Article 47(3) — Recognition by the authorities of their own motion as equivalent proof of documents not accompanied by an express reasoned request for them to be regarded as equivalent — Not applicable to direct export — National procedural rules — Obligations of the competent national authorities)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-1/06) (1)

   (Agriculture - System of export refunds on agricultural products - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Furnishing of proof of export of the products - Production of equivalent proof - Article 47(3) - Recognition by the authorities of their own motion as equivalent proof of documents not accompanied by an express reasoned request for them to be regarded as equivalent - Not applicable to direct export - National procedural rules - Obligations of the competent national authorities)
   (2007/C 199/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended — Recognition by an authority, of its own motion, of supporting documents not accompanied by an express reasoned request for recognition of equivalence as constituting equivalent proof
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2955/94 of 5 December 1994, does not apply to the direct export of products.
   Where, however, as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the exporter, the national export document proving that the products in question have left the customs territory of the Community cannot be produced, the national authorities competent for export refunds must, in accordance with the objectives of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, take into account of their own motion equivalent means of proof and implied requests for documents to be treated as equivalent. Those means of proof must nevertheless be just as satisfactory for the purpose of the verification in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by national law, provided that those rules respect the scope and effectiveness of Community law.
   Where the passing of the deadline for furnishing equivalent means of proof is attributable to the competent national authorities, they cannot rely on the 12-month period laid down by Article 47(2) of Regulation No 3665/87, as amended by Regulation No 2955/94, as against a diligent exporter.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-591/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2014  — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Panrico SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier Spanish word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative grounds for refusal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Independent distinctive role of one element of a composite word mark)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2014 — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Panrico SA
   (Case C-591/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS - Earlier Spanish word mark DOGHNUTS - Relative grounds for refusal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Independent distinctive role of one element of a composite word mark))
   2014/C 202/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bimbo SA (represented by: C. Prat, abogado, and R. Ciullo, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents), Panrico SA (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, abogado)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 in Case T-569/10 Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘BIMBO DOUGHNUTS’ for goods in Class 30 against the decision R 838/2009-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 October 2010 dismissing the action against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international and national word marks ‘DONUT’, ‘DOGHNUTS’ and ‘DONUTS’ and the international and national figurative marks containing the word ‘donuts’ for goods in Class 30 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Bimbo SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case C-372/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Izba Finansowa, Wydział II (Republic of Poland), lodged on 26 July 2010 — Pak-Holdco Sp zoo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/20

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Izba Finansowa, Wydział II (Republic of Poland), lodged on 26 July 2010 — Pak-Holdco Sp zoo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
      (Case C-372/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/34)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Izba Finansowa, Wydział II

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Pak-Holdco Sp zoo

         Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  In interpreting Article 7(1) of Directive 69/335/EEC, (1) must a national court take account of the provisions of amending directives, in particular Directives 73/79/EEC (2) and 73/80/EEC, (3) even though those directives were no longer in force when the Republic of Poland acceded to the European Union?

                  2.

                  If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the exclusion of the assets of a capital company from the amount on which capital duty is charged, as laid down in the first indent of Article 5(3) of Directive 69/335/EEC, concern only the assets of a capital company which has had an increase in capital?

         (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412.

         (2)  OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13.

         (3)  OJ 1973 L 103, p. 15.


title: Case C-309/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
   (Case C-309/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary restructuring amount laid down in paragraph 2 of that article of EUR 113,30 per tonne of quota for sugar and inulin syrup for the marketing year 2008/2009 must in any case be imposed in full, even if such payment would result in a (significant) surplus in the restructuring fund and there appears to be no prospect of any further increase in financing requirements?

               2.

               In the event that the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:
               Does Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 in that case infringe the principle that the Community can act only within the powers conferred on it, because Article 11 could, by means of the temporary restructuring amount, introduce a general tax which is not limited to financing expenditure benefiting the persons called upon to pay the tax?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42.


title: Case T-459/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (manufacturing score card) (Community trade mark — Community trade mark application in respect of manufacturing score card word mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 November 2007 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (manufacturing score card)
   (Case T-459/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Community trade mark application in respect of manufacturing score card word mark - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation(EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 315/67)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005 (Case R 1059/2004-2) concerning an application for registration of the manufacturing score card word mark as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 22 July 1997 in the case of Rose Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln (Case C-280/97)

text:
C 295/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27. 9 . 97
order that the third party cease using the trademark for                  München ( Labour Court, Munich ) of 3 July 1997, which
goods which have been put on the market under that                        was received at the Court Registry on 1 August 1997, for
mark in a State which is not a Contracting State ?                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Andrea Krüger v.
                                                                          Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg on the following question :
                                                                          Is a rule of national law — in this case Paragraph 3n of
                                                                          the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag ( federal employees'
                                                                          collective agreement, 'BAT') in conjunction with the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                 Zuwendungs-TV ( collective agreement on allowances ) of
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 22 July 1997 in the                  12 October 1993 — compatible with Directive 76/207/
case    of   Rose    Elektrotechnik GmbH &              Co  KG    v.      EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
                     Oberfinanzdirektion Köln                             treatment for men and women as regards access to
                         ( Case C-280/97 )                                employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                          working conditions ('), and with Article 119 of the EC
                             ( 97/C 295/30 )                              Treaty, if it provides that workers who exercise an activity
                                                                          which is not subject to compulsory social insurance during
                                                                          child-care leave , by contrast with workers liable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    compulsory social insurance, do not receive an annual
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate                     special allowance under the relevant collective agreement ?
of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf ( Finance Court,                          Is that rule compatible with the above provisions in
Düsseldorf) of 22 July 1997, which was received at the                    particular if workers who are on child-care leave but are
Court Registry on 1 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling                 not working nevertheless receive the special allowance
in the case of Rose Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co KG v.
                                                                          under the collective agreement in the first year ?
Oberfinanzdirektion Köln on the following questions :
                                                                          (') OJ L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
 1.  Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version in
     Annex I to Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/96
     of 9 September 1996 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
     Tariff (')   ( combined         nomenclature    1997 )  to   be
     interpreted as meaning that an article described as a                Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
     junction box and consisting of a rectangular container                  the European Communities against the French Republic
     with lid of coated die-cast aluminium ( aluminium/                                              ( Case C-282/97 )
     silicon alloy with aluminium content predominant by
     weight ) with four steel connecting bolts and four                                                 ( 97/C 295/32 )
     earthing bolts of copper-plated steel ( packed loose in
     the article and yet to be inserted into threaded holes
     provided for that purpose ) is to be classified under                 An action against the French Republic was brought before
     heading No 8538 ?                                                     the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, represented by Fernando
                                                                           Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-
 2 . If the answer to Question 1 is negative : Is the
                                                                           Castera, a national civil servant on secondment to that
     Common Customs Tariff ( Combined Nomenclature
                                                                           service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      1997) to be interpreted as meaning that such an                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
     Article is to be classified, applying the first sentence of
                                                                           Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
      General Rule 2(a ) for the interpretation of the
      Combined Nomenclature, under heading No 8536 ?
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims
 H OJ L 238 , 19 . 9 . 1996 , p. 1 .                                       that the Court should :
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt witin the period
                                                                                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                92/73/EEC (') of 22 September 1992 widening the
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht                     scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2 ) and 75/319/EEC ( 3 )
 München by order of that court of 3 July 1997 in the case                      on the approximation of provisions laid down by
       of Andrea Krüger v. Kreiskrankenhaus Ebersberg                           law, regulation or administrative action relating to
                           ( Case C-281/97)                                     medicinal products and laying down additional
                                                                                provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the
                               ( 97/C 295/31 )                                  French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                     — order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-521/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Power transformers market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market-sharing agreement — 2002 Leniency Notice — Immunity from fines — Legitimate expectations — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission
      (Case T-521/09) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing agreement - 2002 Leniency Notice - Immunity from fines - Legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons)
      (2015/C 016/44)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SAS (Paris, France) (represented initially by: A. Schild, C. Simphal and E. Estellon, and subsequently by: J. Derenne, A. Müller-Rappard and M. Domecq, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

         Re

      Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final, of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

         Operative part of the judgment:

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Alstom Grid SAS to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ 2010 C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-647/13: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/47

      Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Meda v OHIM — Takeda (PANTOPREM)
      (Case T-647/13) (1)

      (2015/C 016/70)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case T-251/09: Order of the General Court of 5 January 2010 — Société des Pétroles Shell v European Commission

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/48

         Order of the General Court of 5 January 2010 — Société des Pétroles Shell v European Commission
   (Case T-251/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/88

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case F-97/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v FRA

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/26

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v FRA
   (Case F-97/13)
   2014/C 85/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Laure, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   To annul the decision to nominate another candidate to the Senior Programme Manager position in FRA and the implicit decision not to nominate the applicant to the other position of Senior Programme Manager, mentioned in the vacancy notice.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Director’s decision of 5th February 2013 informing the Applicant that the Director of FRA had chosen to appoint another candidate to the position of Senior Programme Manager — Social Research (AD8) and, as a consequence, not to appoint her to this position;

               —

               annul the undated implicit decision not to appoint her to the other position as Senior Programme Manager in the vacancy notice;

               —

               annul any decision taken on the basis of these illegal decisions;

               —

               annul the decision of 11th July 2013 insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s complaint and as it refuses to initiate an administrative inquiry, conducted by an unquestionably unbiased, impartial and objective investigator, in order to establish the facts;

               —

               compensate the material prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 550 651 euros;

               —

               compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 70 000 euros;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay for all costs.


title: Case T-560/14: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/14

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding and Others v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-560/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 - Measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 228/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV (Hoorn NH, Netherlands) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and R. Van de Westelaken, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the European Seed Association (ESA) and the Association internationale des producteurs de l’horticulture (AIPH).

               3.

               ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-83/02: Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

text:
C 118/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.5.2002
The applicant further claims that there was a violation of               Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of                                the European Central Bank
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It submits that
there is no effective remedy before a court with full jurisdiction                                (Case T-83/02)
against decisions of the Commission concerning the control
of concentrations. The Commission must therefore itself                                          (2002/C 118/47)
comply fully with the principle of impartiality. To that end,
the investigative and decision-making functions must, in the                               (Language of the case: German)
applicant’s view, be entrusted to different persons or bodies,
which was not the case.
                                                                         An action against the European Central Bank was brought
The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the general         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
principle of Community law that any person whose rights have             on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
been infringed is entitled to an effective remedy. According to          (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.
the applicant, the contested decision interferes with the action
brought by the applicant against the decision declaring the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
operation incompatible with the common market. Any annul-
ment which might follow from that first application would be             —     annul the formal warning given by letter of 28.2.2002;
deprived of a great part of its effect as a result of the decision
at issue in the present application. The contested decision thus         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
also constitutes an infringement of the principle of good
administration, given that it obliged the applicant to bring a
fresh application in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
first application.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, argues in support
                                                                         of his claim that the formal warning at issue is null and void,
The applicant then claims that the Commission exceeded its
                                                                         inasmuch as it is based on incorrect factual allegations, and
territorial jurisdiction by laying down certain conditions               that the complaints on which that warning is based are totally
for the separation. The applicant further submits that the
                                                                         unjustified. The applicant’s conduct does not reflect any
Commission did not comply with Article 8(4) of Regulation                continuing pattern of poor performance, and the applicant has
No 4064/89. That article, according to the applicant, requires           adequately performed his contractual duties.
the Commission to restore effective competition, not to restore
competitors in the market in question, as was done in the
contested decision. In that decision, finally, the Commission            Furthermore, the defendant is precluded by the obligation of
also failed to comply with the general principle of pro-                 an employer to have regard for the welfare and interests of his
portionality and made manifest errors of assessment.                     employees from taking into account certain facts by way of
                                                                         justification for the giving of the warning at issue. An
                                                                         employer is under an obligation forthwith to rebuke the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on           person concerned in respect of any matters on which he
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of      proposes to rely by way of justification for the adoption of
    30.12.1989, p. 1, republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990, p. 13).      measures adversely affecting the employee. In addition, the
                                                                         defendant’s conduct infringes the European rules on data
                                                                         protection.


title: Case T-543/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark HOT SOX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — provima Warenhandels v OHIM — Renfro (HOT SOX)
   (Case T-543/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark HOT SOX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 118/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: provima Warenhandels GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: J. Croll and H. Prange, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Renfro Corp. (Mount Airy, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: C. Schenk, M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2014 (Case R 1859/2013-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between provima Warenhandels GmbH and Renfro Corp.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders provima Warenhandels GmbH to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case C-68/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 14 February 2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against D. Lipjes

text:
C 83/14                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           5.4.2003
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 14 February
                                                                           2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
                                                                                D. Lipjes
                           (Case C-67/03)
                                                                                (Case C-68/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/25)
                          (2003/C 83/24)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                           Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 14 February
                                                                           2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecretaris van Finan-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
                                                                           ciën against D. Lipjes on the following questions:
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
                                                                           1.     Must Article 28b(E)(3) of the Sixth Directive (1) be
                                                                                construed as meaning that that provision refers only to
                                                                                services by intermediaries where the recipient of the
                                                                                service is a taxable person within the meaning of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       directive or a non-taxable legal person within the meaning
                                                                                of Article 28a of the Directive?
—     declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                  2.     If not, must the first sentence of Article 28b(E)(3) of the
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      Sixth Directive then be construed as meaning that where
      Commission Directive 2000/39/EC (1) of 8 June 2000                          an intermediary acts on the purchase and sale of a
      establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure               tangible object between two individuals, for the purposes
      limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/                     of determining the place where the intermediary acts,
      24/EC ( 2) on the protection of the health and safety of                    regard must be had to the place where the transaction is
      workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work,                  carried out, as if the transaction were a supply or service
      or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions,                     by a taxable person as referred to in Article 8 of the Sixth
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                   Directive?
      under Article 3(1) of that directive.
                                                                           (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              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 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
                                                                           di Venezia — Sezione IV Civile by order of that Court of
Article 249 EC, which provides that directives are binding on              6 November 2002 in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di
the Member States as to the result to be achieved, requires the             Cornedo Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze
Member States to respect the time-limits for transposition
stipulated in the directives. This time-limit expired on                                              (Case C-69/03)
31 December 2001 without the Italian Republic having
adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                                (2003/C 83/26)
referred to in the Commission’s claims.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 142 of 16.06.2000, p. 47.                                        European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
( 2) OJ L 131 of 5.05.1998, p. 11.                                         Venezia — Sezione IV Civile (Court of Appeal of Venice,
                                                                           Fourth Civil Chamber) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. Coop.
                                                                           a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:


title: Case C-83/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 19 February 2013 — Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet v Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 19 February 2013 — Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet v Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)
   (Case C-83/13)
   2013/C 114/42
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Arbetsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet

      Defendants: Fonnship A/S, Svenska Transportarbetarförbundet, Facket för Service och Kommunikation (SEKO)

      Questions referred

   Is the rule in the EEA Agreement on free movement of services, maritime transport services — which rule has an equivalent in the EC Treaty — applicable to a company with its head office in an EFTA State as regards its activity in the form of transport services to an EC Member State or an EFTA State using a vessel which is registered and flagged in another country outside the EC/EEA?


title: Case T-253/12: Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/23

         Action brought on 8 June 2012 — Hammar Nordic Plugg v Commission
   (Case T-253/12)
   2012/C 258/42
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hammar Nordic Plugg AB (Trollhättan, Sweden) (represented by: I. Otken Eriksson and U. Öberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, entirely or in part, the European Commission’s decision of 8 February 2012 on State aid SA.28809 (C 29/2010, ex NN 42/2010 and ex CP 194/2009) which Sweden granted in favour of Hammar Nordic Plugg;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU
               The applicant claims that the municipality of Vänersborg did not grant unlawful aid to the applicant within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by selling and letting publicly owned property below the property’s market value. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission made a series of incorrect assessments as regards the legal classification of the alleged State aid measures in that:

                           —

                           the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the purchase of the installation at an earlier stage for SEK 17 million could constitute State aid;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to take into account that the actual sale price of SEK 8 million was in accordance with the installation’s market value;

                           —

                           the Commission disregarded the principle of a private investor in a market economy, by fixing the value at a later stage at different value time points as the basis of its decision before the actual sale to a private investor;

                           —

                           the so-called ‘third estimate in the PwC report’ at the value time point of March 2008 did not constitute a reliable indicator of the true market value of the installation, and

                           —

                           the Commission did not have regard to the fact that the installation was quite simply sold at a later stage for SEK 8 million in May 2011 after an open bidding procedure as part of the new owners’ insolvency.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that the alleged State aid did not distort competition and did not affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation to carry out investigations and duty to state reasons and the applicant’s rights of the defence.


title: Action brought on 26 January 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-23/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 95/7
    — infringement of the principle of equal treatment and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         non-discrimination : by generally imposing the
         opening up of the alternative networks to operators          — the aim and the content of the contested act are part of
         who exploit them in very different national systems,             Title XII of the EC Treaty and Article 129d ( inasmuch as
         benefitting some and adversely affecting others as
                                                                          it is a procedural article ) is the only appropriate legal
         a result of being incompatible with the duty of
                                                                          basis . On the one hand, despite the procedural and
         non-discrimination and of equal treatment required,
                                                                          terminological changes made to the Commission's
         not only of the Member States, but also of the                   proposal, there are numerous 'policy' elements which
         Community institutions . This defect of the Directive            justify recourse to Article 129d ( 1 ). On the other, there
         is even more serious inasmuch as since the legal
                                                                          are also a number of 'interoperability' aspects ( second
         system governing the activity of cable television                indent of Article 129c ( 1 ) as basic Article ) which justify
         operators in Portugal is liberal as regards the issuing          of themselves recourse to Article 129d ( 3 ). Finally, since
         of licences, it magnifies the impact of liberalization,
                                                                          projects of common interest have been clearly identified,
         when in fact it would be desirable, having regard
                                                                          the Community contribution falls within the scope of
         to the comparative underdevelopment of the                       the third indent of Article 129c ( 1 ) and the correct legal
         Portuguese national network, that the effect of the              basis is in this case also Article 1 29d ( 3 ) . Given that there
         measure should be felt gradually and over time .
                                                                          are specific legal bases in the Treaty, Article 235 of the
                                                                          EC Treaty is not at all relevant,
— Misuse of powers : Directive 95/5 1/EC does not seem to
     be intended to promote fairness in greater competition
    with regard to the leasing of networks and,                       — in the alternative, lack of competence, misuse of powers
    consequently, to the liberalized telecommunications                   as regards Article 2 ( 2 ) of the contested Decision :
     services . Rather, it advances in a concealed manner the             that provision gives the contested Decision an
     total liberalization of the infrastructures and places in a          unascertainable scope, constitutes an arrogation of
     privileged position those cable television operators who             competence by the Council and, above all, is tantamount
     are already established in some of the Member States                 to disregarding ab initio the rights of Parliament to
     where they are not subject to any competition .                      intervene in the legislative process .
H OJ No L 256 , 26 . 10 . 19 95 , p . 49 .                            0 ) Decision 95/468/EC, published in OJ No L 269 , 11 . 11 . 1995 ,
                                                                          p. 23 .
  Action brought on 25 January 1996 by the European
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                         ( Case C-22/96 )                             Action brought on 26 January 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the French Republic
                           ( 96/C 95/ 10 )
                                                                                ( Case C-23/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/ 11 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 January 1996 by the European                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Jose Luis                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Rufas Quintana, action as Agents, with an address for                 26 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the               Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Jean
Parliament, Batiment Tour, Kirchberg.                                 Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                      Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the                The applicant claims that the Court should :
    Decision of the Council of 6 November 1995 on a
     Community contribution for telematic interchange of
     data between administrations in the Community                    — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     ( IDA )( 1 ),                                                        within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                          or administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                          with Commission Directive 91 /507/EEC ( J ) modifying
— annul, in any event, also pursuant to Article 173 of the                the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC ( 2 ) on the
     EC Treaty, Article 2 ( 2 ) of that Decision,                         approximation of the laws of Member States relating
                                                                          to analytical , pharmacotoxicological and clinical
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 95/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             30 . 3 . 96
      medicinal products, the French Republic has failed to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                             Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division
                                                                           ( Crown Side ), by order of that court of 29 November 1995 ,
                                                                           in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against Ministry
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
                                                                                ( Case C-29/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
those of Case C-18/96 ( 3 ).                                                                              ( 96/C 95/ 13 )
(') OJ No L 270, 26 . 9 . 1991 , p . 32,
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 1 .                                  European Communities by an order of the High Court of
(-') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .                                   Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division
                                                                           ( Crown Side ) of 29 November 1995 , which was received at
                                                                           the Court Registry on 5 February 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against
                                                                           Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the
                                                                           following questions :
                                                                           1 . Are Council Directives 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September
                                                                               1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
Reference for a preliminary ruling from Lansratten i                           States relating to veterinary medicinal products ( ! )
Jonkopings Lan by order of that court of 26 January 1996 in                    and 81 /852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
     the case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmanna Ombudet                          approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                            ( Case C-27/96 )                                   to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical
                              ( 96/C 95/ 12 )
                                                                               standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
                                                                               veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( and in particular
                                                                               Articles 5 , 8 , 9 , 1 1 , 14 , 29-31 , 35 , 40 and 41 of Directive
                                                                               81 /851 /EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                               81 /852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior
European Communities by an order of Lansratten i                               to any amendment) to be interpreted as permitting
Jonkopings Lan (Jonkoping County Administrative Court)                         the competent authority of a Member State, in
of 26 January 1996 , which was received at the Court                           circumstances such as those hereinbefore described :
Registry on 30 January 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Danisco Sugar AB v. Allmanna Ombudet ( Public
Attorney ) on the following questions :                                        ( a ) to require an applicant for a marketing
                                                                                authorization in respect of a veterinary medicinal
                                                                                product ('the Product') to identify or to arrange to
1 . on a true construction of the Act of Accession of                                 be identified to the competent authority the names
       Sweden,     Finland       and     Austria ('),   in  particular                and addresses of any and all manufacturers of the
      Articles 137 ( 2 ), 145 ( 2 ) and 149 ( 1 ), are decisions taken                substance which the applicant intends to purchase
       at national level concerning levies on normal                                  for use as one of the active ingredients ('the Active
      transitional stocks of sugar as set out in the Swedish                          Ingredient') in the manufacture by the applicant
       Sugar Law, as amended, to be regarded as unlawful                              of the Product, and to supply or arrange to be
       transitional measures ?
                                                                                supplied to the competent authority details of
                                                                                the site(s ) where the Active Ingredient would be
      If not :                                                                        manufactured and of the manufacturing processes
                                                                                and control testing procedures used by the
                                                                                manufacturer of the Active Ingredient;
2 . on a true construction of the European Community
      organization of the market in sugar, in particular                       ( b ) to require the applicant ( whether by specific licence
      Articles 39 and 40 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation
                                                                                conditions or by withholding grant of a marketing
       ( EEC ) No 1785/81 (2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EC )                       authorization or otherwise ) either to comply with
      No 3300/94 ( 3 ), are decisions taken at national level
                                                                                the above requirements or to market the Product
      concerning levies on normal transitional stocks of sugar                        only using supplies of the Active Ingredient
      as set out in the Swedish Sugar Law, as amended, to be                          purchased from specified third parties;
      regarded as unlawful interference in the organization of
      the market ?
                                                                               ( c ) to suspend the time limits for a grant of a marketing
                                                                                authorization laid down by Article 8 of Directive
( ] ) OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 .                                                   81 /851 /EEC until the applicant has agreed to
( 2 ) OJ No L 177 , 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .                                            supply the information referred to in ( a ) above ?
( 3 ) OJ No L 341 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 39 .
                                                                           2 . Would it be material to the answers to questions 1 ( a ) to
                                                                               ( c ) above if it were not reasonably possible for an
                                                                               applicant to obtain any of the information referred to in


title: Case T-199/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

         Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-199/04)
   (2004/C 217/44)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textil Mills Ltd, Landhi, Karachi (Pakistan), represented by L. Ruessmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (1) to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on the product of the applicant,

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant is a Pakistani company which produces bed linen and exports it to the European Union. Its products are subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested regulation. In support of its application to annul that regulation, the applicant invokes the following grounds:

               —

               a breach of Article 5, paragraphs 7 and 9, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (2) and a breach of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, insofar as the initiation of the investigation is concerned. The applicant submits that the complaint, on the basis of which the investigation was opened, was manifestly insufficient both with regard to what it presents as facts and with regard to its reasoning in support of the opening of an investigation,

               —

               a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Articles 2, paragraphs 3 and 5, and Article 18, paragraph 4, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, with regard to the calculation of the normal value,

               —

               a breach of Article 2, paragraph 10, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement and of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 253 EC in connexion with the drawback adjustment in the comparison of the normal value and export price,

               —

               a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, as regards the determination of the existence of material injury as well as the establishment of a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury.

      (1)  OJ L66 4/3/2004 p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 56, 06.03.1996 p. 1


title: Case C-194/17 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2017 by Georgios Pandalis against the judgment delivered on 14 February 2017 in Case T-15/16 Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/10

         Appeal brought on 14 April 2017 by Georgios Pandalis against the judgment delivered on 14 February 2017 in Case T-15/16 Georgios Pandalis v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-194/17 P)
   (2017/C 300/14)
   Language of the case: Germany

      Parties

      Appellant: Georgios Pandalis (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               I.

               annul the decision of the Court of 14 February 2017 in Case T-15/16 relating to revocation proceedings brought against the EU trade mark No 001273119 ‘Cystus’;

               II.

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 (Case R 2839/2014-1) relating to revocation proceedings brought against the EU trade mark No 001273119 ‘Cystus’;

               III.

               annul the decision of the Cancellation Division in the cancellation proceedings 8374 C of 12 September 2014, in so far as it revoked the EU trade mark No 001273119 ‘Cystus’ in respect of ‘food supplements not for medical purposes’ in Class 30;

               IV.

               reject the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO against the EU trade mark No 001273119 ‘Cystus’, in so far as it relates to ‘food supplements not for medical purposes’ in Class 30;

               V.

               order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant alleges the following errors in law in the interpretation and application of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (‘EUTMR’) (1):

               —

               First, failure to set out in the grounds the requirements of the provision which are to be examined in detail (use as a trade mark, whether use of the trade mark is genuine and whether the mark was used in respect of the goods or services protected).

               —

               Secondly, failure to determine whether the ‘Cystus’ goods fall under the definition of food supplements for the purposes of Article 2(a) of the Food Supplements Directive.

               —

               Thirdly, failure to classify the ‘Cystus’ goods in respect of which the mark in question was used.

               —

               Fourthly, distortion of the facts in the determination of whether the ‘Cystus’ goods are food supplements not for medical purposes and the resulting wrong conclusion that the mark was not used with respect to food supplements not for medical purposes.

               —

               Fifthly, there was no separate analysis of whether the (non-medical) ‘lozenges’ covered by the mark are food supplements.

         In addition, the appellant alleges insufficient grounds for the finding that the ‘Cystus’ mark was not genuinely used in respect of food supplements not for medical purposes in accordance with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) EUTMR:

               —

               First, the grounds of the judgment make it impossible to justify why the facts and evidence adduced by the appellant were not sufficient to convince the Court that the mark was used in respect of food supplements not for medical purposes.

               —

               Secondly, it is inadmissible to base the finding that the ‘Cystus’ mark was not used in respect of the protected food supplements not for medical purposes on the ground that certain evidence contradicts that classification, without stating the goods in respect of which the mark was used instead.

               —

               Thirdly, there is no differentiated examination of whether the (non-medical) ‘lozenges’ distributed under the mark are food supplements, and no explanation why the appropriate differentiation was not carried out.

         Furthermore, the appellant alleges an error of law in the interpretation and application of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) EUTMR:

               —

               Firstly, a mistaken examination of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) EUTMR; it was not examined whether the mark in its registered form, or in one of the forms differing from its registered form, which have no impact on their distinctive character (Article 15(1)(a) EUTMR), was not used in respect of food supplements not for medical purposes.

               —

               Secondly, classification of the mark as descriptive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, since the appellant in reality has no possibility of using the mark in a non-descriptive manner as a trade mark in respect of its ‘Cystus’ goods, which are based on the Cistus Incanus plant, although the Court should have found in the context of the examination under Article 51(1)(a) and (2) EUTMR that the mark possessed at least average distinctive character.

         In addition, the appellant alleges contradictory and insufficient reasoning relating to the finding that there was no genuine use of EU trade mark No 001273119 ‘Cystus’ in respect of food supplements not for medical purposes, in accordance with Article 51(1)(a) and (2) EUTMR:

               —

               Firstly, a contradiction in the finding that the spelling of the mark with ‘y’ instead of ‘i’ does not suffice as proof of its use as an EU trade mark and the claim at the same time that, as a result, there were no absolute grounds for refusal under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.

               —

               Secondly, a failure to state reasons in so far as the Court does not justify why the actual use of the mark does not fulfil the requirements of Article 51(1)(a) and (2) EUTMR.

         Finally, the appellant alleges that the Court committed an error of law in the interpretation and application of the second sentence of Article 755 EUTMR: the Court erred in law by wrongly assuming that the Board of Appeal had not made any observations relating to the alleged absolute ground for refusal of registration under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR.

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


title: Case C-333/04: Action brought on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/34

         Action brought on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-333/04)
   (2004/C 228/70)
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, measures and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposing the directive expired on 30 June 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 23 of 28.1.2000, p. 57.


title: Case T-175/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/50

      Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)
      (Case T-175/10)
      (2010/C 161/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant(s): Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2010 in case R 1116/2009-4; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FERTILITYINVIVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

         Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for is not eligible for registration as a Community trade mark because it does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case T-83/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/61

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-83/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/106)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-641/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 December 2015 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 2 December 2015 — Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH v Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH
   (Case C-641/15)
   (2016/C 090/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verwertungsgesellschaft Rundfunk GmbH

      Defendant: Hettegger Hotel Edelweiss GmbH

      Question referred

   Is the condition of ‘against [payment] of an entrance fee’ laid down in Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1) satisfied where;

               —

               through the TV set made available in each room of a hotel, the hotel operator provides access to the signal for various television and radio channels (‘hotel room TV’), and

               —

               for use of the room (including hotel room TV), the hotel operator charges a fee per room per night (room rate) which also includes use of the TV set and the television and radio channels to which access is thereby provided?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28.


title: Case C-308/05: Action brought on 4 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/10

         Action brought on 4 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-308/05)
   (2005/C 243/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Aresu and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not taking the legal and administrative measures necessary to implement Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 21 of that directive provides that Member States are to bring the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the directive into force with effect from 15 January 2004, and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
   The Commission observes that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has still not taken or notified those implementing measures.


title: Case T-376/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Rights of the defence — 2002 Leniency Notice — Plea of illegality — Concept of agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Calculation of the fine — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity — Application of a multiplier to the additional sum)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Mamoli Robinetteria v Commission
   (Case T-376/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Rights of the defence - 2002 Leniency Notice - Plea of illegality - Concept of agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Calculation of the fine - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity - Application of a multiplier to the additional sum)
   2013/C 325/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Mamoli Robinetteria SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Capelli and M. Valcada, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents, assisted initially by F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. De Matteis, and subsequently by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mamoli Robinetteria SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.