title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2001 in Case C-17/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale): François De Coster v Collège des bourgmestre et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Defination of a national court or tribunal — Freedom to provide services — Municipal tax on satellite dishes — Restriction on the freedom to receive television programmes by satellite)

text:
C 84/18                     EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
(BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1246), employers of 10 or fewer workers                     Capitale (Judicial Board of the Brussels-Capital region)
from the duty to keep documents containing the results of a                   (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
risk assessment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                before that court between François De Coster and Collège des
fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty              bourgmestre et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort — on the
(now Articles 10 EC and 249 EC) and Articles 9(1)(a) and                      interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
10(3)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on                   amendment, Article 49 EC) and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC
the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                     Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55 EC) — the Court (Fifth
the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183                       Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
p. 1). the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr                    S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the                 and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 Nov-
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate                           ember 2001, in which it has ruled:
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                              Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
1.     Declares that, by failing to ensure that the obligation to be in       and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55
       possession of an assessment in documentary form of the risks to        EC) must be interpreted as preventing the application of a tax on
       safety and health at work, as laid down by Council Directive           satellite dishes such as that introduced by Articles 1 to 3 of the tax
       89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures             regulation adopted on 24 June 1997 by the municipal council of
       to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers          Watermael-Boitsfort.
       at work, applies to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all
       circumstances, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of that     (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       directive;
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                7 February 2002
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 29 November 2001                                 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensions-
                                                                                versicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (1)
in Case C-17/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale): François De Coster v Collège des bourgmestre                       (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
               et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (1)                         No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age
                                                                              insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Defination of a                         Member State before the entry into force of Regulation
national court or tribunal — Freedom to provide services —                                                 No 1408/71)
Municipal tax on satellite dishes — Restriction on the
    freedom to receive television programmes by satellite)                                                (2002/C 84/29)
                               (2002/C 84/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-28/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-17/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                  by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
from the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Liselotte


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission (OJ C 441, 28.11.2016, as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/26

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-695/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 September 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-104/15, U (*) v Commission
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016
      , as re-published for reasons of protection of personal data)
   (2017/C 095/35)
   On page 4, in the table of contents, and on page 28, ‘U (*)’ is replaced by ‘RN (*)’.


title: Case C-138/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Commission (Appeal — Orphan medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 — Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 — Refusal to grant marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product ‘imatinib mesylate’)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2016 — Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV v European Medicines Agency (EMA), European Commission
   (Case C-138/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Orphan medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 - Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 - Refusal to grant marketing authorisation for the generic version of the orphan medicinal product ‘imatinib mesylate’))
   (2016/C 156/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Teva Pharma BV, Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV (represented by: K. Bacon QC, E. Mackenzie, Barrister, and G. Morgan, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: N. Rampal Olmedo, M. Tovar Gomis, S. Marino and T. Jabłoński, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Teva Pharma BV and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2005 in Case T-286/03 The Gillette Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport — Earlier national figurative mark WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III — Likelihood of confusion — Refusal of registration — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 April 2005
   in Case T-286/03 The Gillette Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport - Earlier national figurative mark WILKINSON SWORD XTREME III - Likelihood of confusion - Refusal of registration - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 155/32)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-286/03: The Gillette Company, established in Boston (United States of America), represented by A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and L. Kouker, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and J. Weberndörfer), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Wilkinson Sword GmbH, established in Solingen (Germany), represented by E. Kessler, lawyer — action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2003 (Case R 221/2002-4), refusing registration of the figurative mark RIGHT GUARD XTREME sport — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.


No C 119/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13 . 5 . 95
on the same questions as in Case C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,                    from the register of Case C-455/93 : Italian Republic v.
C-49/95 , C-50/95 and C-60/95 ( 1 ).                                    Commission of the European Communities.
i 1 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             0 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
   Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 H
                          and C-138/90 ( 2 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C- 1 1 7/94 ( x )
                            ( 95/C 119/21                                                           ( 95/C 119/23 )
fiy order of 21 February 1995 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Joined Cases C-183/89 and C-138/90 :               from the register of Case C- 1 17/94 (reference for a
1 . Gesamtverband des Deutschen Steinkohlenbergbaus,                    preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Diisseldorf):
2 . Eschweiler Bergwerks-Verein AG, 3 . Gewerkschaft                    Ratiopharm GmbH & Co . v. Mundipharma GmbH.
Auguste Victoria, 4 . Gewerkschaft Sophia-Jacoba, 5 .
Preussag AG Kohle, 6 . Ruhrkohle AG, 7. Saarbergwerke
AG v. Commission of the European Communities and                        (!) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the
European Communities.
f 1 ) OJ No C 192 , 29 . 7 . 1989 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 146, 15 . 6 . 1990 .
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-183/94 (*)
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/24 )
                                                                        By order of 7 February 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-455/93 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                            ( 95/C 119/22 )                             from the register of Case C-l 83/94: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 17 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 f 1 ) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Parliament (Agents: M. Peter and J. Pantalis) — application
                         of 22 March 1995                               for the annulment of the decision of the European
                                                                        Parliament of 29 September 1992 refusing the payment of
        in Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy and Others v.                  the applicant of the expatriation allowance from
                     European Parliament (*)                            1 September 1992 — the Court of First Instance ( Second
(Officials   — Expatriation allowance — Services performed              Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
                for an international organization)                      D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio, Judges; H. Jung,
                            ( 95/C 119/25                               Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March 1995 , in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        1 , dismisses the action;
In Case T-43/93 : Sylviane Dachy, Loris and Fabio Lo                    2, orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Giudice, the next-of-kin of Mario Lo Giudice, formerly an
official of the European Parliament, residing at Namur
( Belgium ), represented by Manuel Campolini, of the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 210, 4 . 8 . 1993 .
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine, v. European


title: Case C-482/14: Action brought on 30 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/17

      Action brought on 30 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
      (Case C-482/14)
      (2015/C 016/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, J. Hottiaux and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should decide as follows:

                  1.

                  By allowing public funds paid for the management of railway infrastructure to be transferred to transport services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) (Article 6(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC).

                  2.

                  By failing to ensure that compliance with the prohibition on transferring public funds for the management of railway infrastructure to transport services can be monitored by the type of accounting system, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 6(1) of Directive 91/440/EEC).

                  3.

                  By failing to ensure that infrastructure charges can be used only to fund the infrastructure manager’s business, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 7(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC).

                  4.

                  By failing to ensure that public funds paid for the provision of public passenger transport services are shown separately in the relevant accounts, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (Article 9(4) of Directive 91/440/EEC) and under Article 6(1) in conjunction with point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2).

                  5.

                  The Federal Republic of Germany shall pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:
      Germany allows the Deutsche Bahn group, by means of profit transfer agreements, to use railway infrastructure managers’ revenues in the form of infrastructure charges and public funds for purposes other than the management of infrastructure. Those funds could, in particular, be used for the purposes of transport services. That is contrary to Articles 6(1) and 31(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU.
      In addition, the infrastructure managers’ accounting system does not allow the prohibition on transferring public funds to transport services to be monitored. Germany allows that, which is contrary to Article 6(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU.
      Lastly, Germany does not ensure that public funds paid for the provision of public passenger transport services are shown separately in the relevant accounts. That is contrary to Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU and to Article 6(1) in conjunction with point 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.

         (1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area, OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32.

         (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70, OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1.


24.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 124/29
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                        Removal from the register of Case T-77/00 ( 1)
      pay damages to make good the material and non-material
      damage suffered as a result of the decision of 14 August                                    (2003/C 124/50)
      2002 and of the conduct preceding and following
      that decision, such damages having been assessed at                                   (Language of the case: English)
      EUR 25 000;
                                                                         By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-77/00:
                                                                         Esat Telecommunications v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.
The applicant is challenging the refusal of the appointing
authority to promote him to Grade A 4 in 2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-208/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/51)
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     breach of the duty to provide reasons;
                                                                         By order of 13 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      inasmuch as his staff report was better than that of               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
      another person in his department who was promoted;                 T-208/02: Lene Beier v Europol.
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of               (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
      officials and of the principle of sound administration;
—     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
      assessment, abuse of process and/or misuse of powers, as                   Removal from the register of Case T-245/02 (1)
      well as breach of the principle of equal treatment and
      infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. In                                     (2003/C 124/52)
      that regard, the applicant is of the view that, contrary to
      the principle of equal treatment, he was ranked behind                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
      an official whose staff report had not been as good as his
      over several years. The explanation provided by his
      immediate superior amounts to misuse of powers and/or              By order of 12 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
      abuse o process, as well as an infringement of Article 26          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      of the Staff Regulations.                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-245/02: Antonia de Jong v Europol.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-310/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of Stork Veco B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

text:
25.11.2000            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/27
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,            1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of metals and
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,                 metal compounds, referred to under R4 of Annex II B
for a preliminary ruling in the case of PPG Industries Fiber                to Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the
Glass B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke                   Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-
Ordening en Milieubeheer on the following questions:                        use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-
                                                                            work Directive?
1.a) Must the operation, recycling/reclamation of other inor-
     ganic material, referred to under R5 of Annex II B to
     Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on waste (hereinafter: ‘the               1.b) How must R4 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the
     Framework Directive’) be interpreted as also covering ‘re-             above question? For the operation referred to therein to
     use’ within the meaning of Article 3(b)(i) of the Frame-               exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a
     work Directive?                                                        treatment, can be used several times or can be taken
                                                                            back?
1.b) How must R5 be interpreted, in view of the answer to the
     above question? For the operation referred to therein to          2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned
     exist is it necessary that the substance be submitted to a             questions that an operation such as the treatment of
     treatment, can be used several times or can be taken                   ferrous chloride solution does not fall within the scope of
     back?                                                                  R4, are the lists of operations given in Annexes II A and
                                                                            II B of the Framework Directive exhaustive or is one of
2.   If it follows from the answer to the abovementioned                    these lists exhaustive, and if so which one?
     questions that an operation such as the filling of clay pits
     does not fall within the scope of R5, are the lists of
     operations in Annexes II A and II B of the Framework              3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
     Directive exhaustive or is one of these lists exhaustive,              an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery
     and if so which one?                                                   within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework
                                                                            Directive?
3.a) On the basis of which criteria must it be decided whether
     an operation must be regarded as disposal or recovery             3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
     within the meaning of Article 1 of the Framework                       operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
     Directive?                                                             given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
                                                                            that operation or does neither of the two lists take
3.b) If an operation can be classified both as a disposal
                                                                            precedence over the other?
     operation and a recovery operation, must priority be
     given to the list in Annex II A or II B when classifying
     that operation or does neither of the two lists take              4.a) If the shipment of the ferrous chloride solution must be
     precedence over the other?                                             regarded as a shipment of waste for disposal, can
                                                                            an objection to the shipment be raised pursuant to
4.   Must the view of the competent authority of the Member                 Article 4(3)(b)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) of
     State of dispatch or of the Member State of destination                1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
     be regarded as decisive as regards whether an operation                shipments of waste within, into and out of the European
     must be classified as disposal or recovery?                            Community solely on account of the need to achieve self-
                                                                            sufficiency at national level without showing that self-
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.                                                   sufficiency at national level is necessary to achieve self-
                                                                            sufficiency at Community level?
                                                                       4.b) If so, is Regulation No 259/53, in so far as it permits such
                                                                            a prohibition on exports solely on the basis of the
                                                                            principle of self-sufficiency at national level, compatible
                                                                            with Article 29 of the Treaty establishing the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse                       Community?
Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case
of Stork Veco B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
           Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
                        (Case C-310/00)
                        (2000/C 335/49)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the                  (1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,            (2) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stork Veco B.V.
and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en
Milieubeheer on the following questions:


title: Case F-22/13: Action brought on 11th July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               5.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 291/7

         Action brought on 11th July 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-22/13)
   2013/C 291/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Pecyna, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision refusing the recruitment of the Applicant considering that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria set in the EPSO/AD/207/11 competition notice.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Unit B.2 in Directorate — General Human Resources and Security of the European Commission dated 26 September 2012 which refused his recruitment at the Commission (ESTAT) from the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/207/11 and adding a comment in the reserve list of that competition informing the Commission's departments that the applicant did not meet the conditions of eligibility for that competition;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decision of the Director of DG HR.D.2 of the European Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by ZZ (No. Rl696/12) dated 25 February 2013;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-55/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark F1H2O — Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM — Idea Marketing (F1H2O)
   (Case T-55/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark F1H2O - Community, international, Benelux and national word and figurative marks with the element ‘F1’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Formula One Licensing BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented initially by B. Klingberg and subsequently by K. Sandberg, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Idea Marketing SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by B. Brisset and O. Vanner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2012 (Case R 1247/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Formula One Licensing BV and Idea Marketing SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Formula One Licensing BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Idea Marketing SA.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case C-430/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Álava, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava, Confederación Empresarial vasca

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Álava, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava, Confederación Empresarial vasca
   (Case C-430/06)
   (2006/C 326/64)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de La Rioja

      Defendants: Diputación Foral de Álava, Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava, Confederación Empresarial vasca
   Question referred
   Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for a deduction from the amount of tax payable which does not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Álava amending Articles 29(1)(a) and 37 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?


title: Case F-16/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Camacho-Fernandes v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos and to other substances — Medical committee — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the disease which caused the official’s death — Lawfulness of the opinion of the medical committee — Principle of collegiate responsibility — Mandate — Statement of reasons — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Camacho-Fernandes v Commission
   (Case F-16/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Social security - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Occupational disease - Exposure to asbestos and to other substances - Medical committee - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the disease which caused the official’s death - Lawfulness of the opinion of the medical committee - Principle of collegiate responsibility - Mandate - Statement of reasons - Principle of equal treatment))
   2014/C 159/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivo Camacho-Fernandes (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme in so far as it confirms the terms of the draft decision rejecting the application to recognise the occupational origin of the disease which caused the death of the applicant’s wife, a former official.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Camacho-Fernandes to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.04.2013, p. 40.


title: Case C-146/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 131/14              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         1.6.2002
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission                                    accordance with Article 4(1) to undertakings
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                  licensed pursuant to Article 8 of the directive;
                             Austria
                                                                               —     failing correctly and/or fully to transpose into Austri-
                        (Case C-146/02)                                              an law the provisions of Article 6(3) concerning
                                                                                the removal and separate collection of equipment
                                                                                containing PCBs which is not subject to inventory
                        (2002/C 131/26)                                              in accordance with Article 4(1) of the directive;
                                                                               —     failing to communicate to the Commission, within
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                         the prescribed time-limit, a plan corresponding to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April                         the requirements of the first indent of Article 11(1)
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                  of the directive for the decontamination and/or
represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an                               disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar                      contained therein;
Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal Service, Wagner Centre
                                                                               —     failing to communicate to the Commission, within
C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                the prescribed time-limit, the outlines provided for
                                                                                in the second indent of Article 11(1) of the directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
(1) declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and (3) and
     11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 Sep-              Pleas in law and main arguments
     tember 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
     nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (1), by               The Republic of Austria was required to communicate by
                                                                         16 September 1999 the various plans, outlines and summaries
     —    failing to send to the Commission within the                   of inventories provided for in Articles 11 and 4(1) of the
          prescribed time-limit a summary of its inventory in            directive referred to in the Commission’s application; it has
          accordance with the requirements of Article 4(1);              not done so.
     —    failing correctly and/or fully to transpose the prohib-
          ition contained in Article 5(1) precluding the separ-          In addition, the legislation communicated by the Republic of
          ation of PCBs from other substances for the purpose            Austria contains none of the express provisions corresponding
          of re-using the PCBs;                                          to the obligations imposed by Article 5(1) (prohibition of
                                                                         separation of PCBs) and Article 6(1) (obligation to transfer to
     —    failing correctly and/or fully to transpose into Austri-       licensed undertakings) and (3) (collection of equipment not
          an law the provisions of Article 6(1) concerning the           subject to inventory) of the directive.
          obligation to transfer used PCBs and equipment
          containing PCBs which is subject to inventory in               (1) OJ L 243, 1996, p. 31.


title: Case T-110/08: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted black matt bottle) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark representing a frosted black matt bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/40

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted black matt bottle)
      (Case T-110/08) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark representing a frosted black matt bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
      (2010/C 161/61)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Freixenet, SA (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted black matt bottle as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Freixenet, SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


30.10.1999            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 314/15
       Removal from the register of Case T-19/98 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-125/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 314/31)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
By order of 8 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 23 July 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
Case T-19/98, Impregilo S.p.A. and Others v Commission of                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the European Communities.                                                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-125/99,
                                                                         D. Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens v European Parlia-
                                                                         ment.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-261/98: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to transpose)

text:
C 316/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                               (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 13 July 2000                                                               of 13 July 2000
in Case C-261/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            in Case C-412/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                            the Cour d’Appel, Versailles): Group Josi Reinsurance
                                                                            Company SA v Universal General Insurance Company
(Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations —                                                       (UGIC) (1)
Directive 76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to
                               transpose)
                                                                            (Brussels Convention — Personal scope — Plaintiff domi-
                                                                            ciled in a non-Contracting State — Material scope — Rules
                           (2000/C 316/06)                                  of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance — Dispute
                                                                                concerning a reinsurance contract)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                     (2000/C 316/07)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-261/98, Commission of the European Communities                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: M.F. de Sousa Fialho) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:                                      in the European Court Reports)
L. Fernandes, M. Telles Romäo and J. Lopes Fernandes), appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or communi-
cate a summary of the pollution reduction programmes laying                 In Case C-412/98: reference to the Court under the Protocol
down quality objectives and the results thereof for the 99                  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
priority substances referred to in the first indent of List II of           the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976                     Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
on pollution caused by dangerous substances discharged into                 from the Cour d’Appel, Versailles, France, for a preliminary
the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129,                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
p. 23), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-              Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA and Universal General
gations under Article 7 of that directive and Article 189(3) of             Insurance Company (UGIC) — on the interpretation of the
the EC Treaty (now Article 249(3) EC) — the Court (Second                   provisions of Title II of the Convention of 27 September 1968,
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamb-                cited above (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by the
er, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, A. Saggio,               Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
on 13 July 2000, in which it:                                               Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
                                                                            amended version of the Convention at p. 77), by the Conven-
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt water pollution reduction          tion of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
      programmes laying down quality objectives to reduce pollution         Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of
      by the substances falling within the first indent of List II of the   26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
      Annex to Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on                the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court
      pollution caused by dangerous substances discharged into the          (Sixth Chamber) composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      aquatic environment of the Community, the Portuguese Republic         President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puis-
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that          sochet, G. Hirsch and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
      directive;                                                            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            1.    Title II of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                         and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                                                                                Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                                                                                the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
                                                                                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the
                                                                                Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the


title: Case T-239/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/33

         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-239/05)
   (2005/C 205/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.
   Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 727/2004-1);

               —

               declare opposition proceedings B497 596 inadmissible;

               —

               order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Coloured three-dimensional mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejects opposition as inadmissible

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

               Pleas in law:

               The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1)

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995 p. 1


title: Case F-34/11: Action brought on 4 April 2011 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/30

         Action brought on 4 April 2011 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-34/11)
   2011/C 204/54
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Dane, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in Grade AST 5.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 19 December 2010 in which the defendant notified the applicant that the grading of his position was held at Grade AST 5;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-268/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Atilla Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), first indent — Rights of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force — Retroactive withdrawal of a residence permit)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Atilla Gülbahce v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg
   (Case C-268/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), first indent - Rights of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Retroactive withdrawal of a residence permit)
   2013/C 9/24
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Atilla Gülbahce

      Defendant: Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 10(1) and Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the EEC-Turkey Association — Grant to a Turkish worker, spouse of a national of the host Member State, of a residence permit of limited duration and a work permit of unlimited duration — Withdrawal, with retroactive effect on grounds of the separation from his spouse of which the competent authorities were not informed, of decisions extending the duration of the residence permit — Conditions for basing the right of residence on Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80, in the light of the work permit of unlimited duration

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as precluding the competent national authorities from withdrawing the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which his residence permit had been issued under national law if there is no question of fraudulent conduct on the part of that worker and that withdrawal occurs after the completion of the period of one year of legal employment provided for in the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 May 2004 in Case T-61/03: Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark QUICK-GRIP — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Refusal to register — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 27 May 2004
   in Case T-61/03: Irwin Industrial Tool Co. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark QUICK-GRIP - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Refusal to register - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   (2004/C 228/93)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-61/03: Irwin Industrial Tool Co., established in Hoffman Estates, Illinois (United States), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Humphreys and S. Laitinen) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2002 (Case R 110/2002-3) refusing to register the word mark QUICK-GRIP as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 September 1999 in Case C-440/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): GIE Groupe Concorde and Others v The Master of the vessel 'Suhadiwarno Panjan' and Others (Brussels Convention - Jurisdiction in contractual matters - Place of performance of the obligation)

text:
18.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 366/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 28 September 1999
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-440/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): GIE Groupe Concorde and Others
v The Master of the vessel ‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and
                              Others (1)                                                         of 29 September 1999
(Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in contractual matters
           — Place of performance of the obligation)
                                                                           in Case C-231/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (1999/C 366/17)                                 the Nederlandse Raad van State): A.M.L. van Rooij v
                                                                              Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Environment — Directive 76/464/EEC — ‘Discharge’ —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Possibility for a Member State to adopt a wider definition of
                    in the European Court Reports)                                       ‘discharge’ than that in the directive)
In Case C-440/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                          (1999/C 366/18)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour de Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between GIE
Groupe Concorde and Others and The Master of the vessel
‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and Others — on the interpretation of                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Sep-
tember 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
and — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of                                          in the European Court Reports)
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed                       In Case C-231/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents           Raad van State, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-              proceedings pending before that court between A.M.L. van
ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet                   Rooij and Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel,
and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                 third party: Gebr. Van Aarle BV — on the interpretation of
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 Sep-              Article 1(2) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976
tember 1999, in which it has ruled:                                        on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
                                                                           charged into the aquatic environment of the Community
On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of              (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-             sed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the                   (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of            General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and               a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26 May
1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese           1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
Republic, the place of performance of the obligation, within the               76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
meaning of that provision, is to be determined in accordance with the          dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
law governing the obligation in question according to the conflict             the Community must be interpreted as covering the emission of
rules of the court seized.                                                     contaminated steam which is precipitated on to surface water.
                                                                               The distance between those waters and the place of emission of
                                                                               the contaminated steam is relevant only for the purpose of
(1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                               determining whether the pollution of the waters cannot be
                                                                               regarded as foreseeable according to general experience, so that
                                                                               the pollution is not attributable to the person causing the steam.


title: Case T-28/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mars v OHIM — Ludwig Schokolade (Shape of a chocolate bar) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community three-dimensional mark — Shape of a chocolate bar — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Right to be heard — Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Mars v OHIM — Ludwig Schokolade (Shape of a chocolate bar)
   (Case T-28/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community three-dimensional mark - Shape of a chocolate bar - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Right to be heard - Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2009/C 205/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mars, Inc. (McLean, Virginia, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, and G. Mills, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: M. Knitter and R. Jacobs, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2007 (Case R 1325/2006-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG and Mars, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mars, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


C 397/28             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-188/98 (1)
                        (98/C 397/50)                                                        (98/C 397/52)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                 By order of 20 October 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (reference for a          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):                  removal from the register of Case C-188/98: Commission
1. RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft 2. Stadt Nordhorn v.              of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Bundeskartellamt.                                                   Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (1)
                        (98/C 397/51)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-47/98 (1)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of                                    (98/C 397/53)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (reference
for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):               By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Court of
WINGAS GmbH (formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH) v.                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Stadt Detmold.                                                      removal from the register of Case C-47/98: Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           tendering procedure for a feasibility study for the
                                                                    modernisation of a railway junction in Warsaw on the E-
                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    20 line, and of the restricted invitation to tender of
in Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl v. Commission of the                      4 December 1995 for a feasibility study for the
                  European Communities (1)                          modernisation of the Warsaw railway node on the E-20
                                                                    TEN line Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(PHARE programme Ð Decision to annul an invitation to               composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
tender and issue a new invitation to tender Ð Action for            Cooke, Judges; M. Johansson, Legal Secretary, for the
damages Ð Admissibility Ð Damage resulting from the                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
loss suffered by a tenderer, from its loss of profit and from       which it:
                the harm caused to its image)
                        (98/C 397/54)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the action;
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs relating to the
                                                                        claim for damages;
In Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl, a company incorporated
under Italian law, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian
Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples              3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs relating to
Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                        the application for annulment.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Marie-JoseÂ Jonczy and Lucio Gussetti) Ð application, at
the stage ultimately reached in the proceedings, for                (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of the Commission decision,
contained in a letter of 16 November 1995, annulling the


title: Case C-546/07: Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/17

         Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-546/07)
   (2008/C 64/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations arising from Article 49 EC and the standstill clause in Chapter 2 (Freedom of Movement for Persons), Paragraph 13 of Annex XII (List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of 16 April 2003) in that:

                           (a)

                           in its administrative practice, it interprets the term ‘Unternehmen der anderen Seite’ (undertakings from the other side) in Paragraph 1(1) of the intergovernmental agreement between Germany and Poland of 31 January 1990 on the posting of workers from Polish undertakings to carry out works contracts as meaning ‘German undertakings’ and

                           (b)

                           with the so-called ‘Arbeitsmarktschutzklausel’ (the clause protecting the labour market) it widened the regional restrictions for access of workers after 16 April 2003, namely the date the EU Act of Accession: Poland was signed;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               A.

               The posting of polish workers to carry out works contracts in Germany takes place pursuant to an agreement of 31 January 1990 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Polish Government on the posting of workers from Polish undertakings to carry out works contracts. Under German administrative practice, the term ‘Unternehmen der anderen Seite’ in Paragraph 1(1) of that agreement is interpreted as meaning ‘German undertakings’.

               B.

               The result is that only German undertakings can conclude works contracts under the Agreement. The only alternative for undertakings from other Member States which wish to carry out work in Germany is to establish a subsidiary company in that Member State. Undertakings from other Member States are thus prevented from taking advantage of the freedom to provide services granted to them under Article 49 EC to conclude works contracts, for work to be carried out in the Federal Republic of Germany, with Polish undertakings under the Agreement between Germany and Poland. There is thus direct discrimination of undertakings from Member States other than Germany which is based on the nationality or the location of the registered office of undertakings.

               C.

               Under Article 46 EC in conjunction with Article 55 EC, discriminatory special rules may only be justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Pursuant to settled case-law, reliance on the justification of public policy, laid down in Article 46 EC, presupposes that the maintaining in force of the discriminatory measure must be necessary to counter a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.

               D.

               Those conditions are not met in the present case. In order to properly supervise the implementation of the Agreement it is not necessary to impose a requirement that undertakings must have their registered office in Germany since all applications have to be made to the German authorities in any case. As regards the enforcement of the liability of the applicant for payment of social security contributions and penalties for infringements of law, such questions are not specifically related to the agreement on works contracts, but are related to the general provision of services in Germany by undertakings from other Member States. There also appears to be no reason why the opening of the bilateral agreement to undertakings from other Member States should lead to an incorrect application or circumvention of the transitional provisions in the Accession Agreement. Concerns about the incorrect use of the transitional provisions in no way amount to a sufficiently serious threat to public policy or security capable of justifying a discriminatory restriction on the freedom to provide services.

               E.

               It is apparent from the wording of the standstill clause in Chapter 2, Paragraph 13 of Annex XII (List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of 16 April 2003) that the standstill obligation is absolute and any restriction on the access of Polish workers with works contracts to the German labour market which places them in a situation which is worse than the one they were in on 16 April 2003 is prohibited. Pursuant to the so-called ‘Arbeitsmarktschutzklausel’ (the clause protecting the labour market), which is continuously applied in the administrative practice of the Federal Employment Agency, works contracts are not permitted in principle if they are to be concluded in an agency district in which the average unemployment rate over the last 6 months has been at least 30 % above the unemployment rate of the Federal Republic of Germany. The list of the agency districts falling within that rule are updated quarterly. Consequently, the Arbeitsmarktschutzklausel infringes the standstill clause of the Act of Accession since new agency districts have been added to the list of ‘blocked’ districts after 16 April 2003.


title: Case T-33/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  29 November 2005  — Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission (Competition — Article 81 EC — Cartel — Zinc phosphate market — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Relevant turnover — Action for annulment)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2005 — Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission
   (Case T-33/02) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81 EC - Cartel - Zinc phosphate market - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Relevant turnover - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 36/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd (Gravesend, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Mobley, H. Bardell and M. Commons, Solicitors)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Wainwright and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
   Application for
   partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/437/EC relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/37.027 — Zinc phosphate) (OJ 2003 L 153, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2004 in Case T-412/03 R, Angelo Wille v European Parliament (Interim measures — Competition procedure — Suspension of operation and application for provisional measures — Admissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/42

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 April 2004
   in Case T-412/03 R, Angelo Wille v European Parliament (1)

   (Interim measures - Competition procedure - Suspension of operation and application for provisional measures - Admissibility)
   (2004/C 118/92)
   Language of the Case: German
   In Case T-412/03 R, Angelo Wille, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and N. Lorenz), APPLICATION: (1) that the applicant be allowed to participate in the tests for Competition EUR/A/167/02; (2) for the annulment of the procedure in that competition and its resumption with the participation of the applicant; and (3) for an order prohibiting the Parliament from drawing up an aptitude list and recruiting staff on the strength of the results of that competition – the President of the Court of First Instance; Registrar: H. Jung, made an order on 30 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2)

               Costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17. 4. 2004


title: Case T-213/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/36

         Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Square v OHIM — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (SQUARE)
   (Case T-213/13)
   2013/C 207/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne (Serres-Castet, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2013 in Case R 775/2012-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Square, Inc.

      Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union of the word mark SQUARE for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38 — international trade mark designating the European Union No W 1 032 395

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Pyrénées Gascogne

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark SQUARE-énergie for goods and services in Classes 31, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

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


title: Removal from the register of Case T-561/93

text:
No C 351 /22           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               30 . 12 . 95
European Union and Commission of the European                                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases
Communities .                                                                    T- 18 9/94 , T-190/94 and T-191 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /43 )
(') 0 | No C 312 , 8 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      Removal from the register of Case T-561 /93 ( )                  By order of 19 October 1995 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                           ( 95/C 351 /41 )
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
              (Language of the case: English)                          from the register of Joined Cases T-l 89/94 , T-190/94
                                                                       and T-191 /94 : Philippe Heno, Michel Manchion and
By order of 16 October 1995 the President of the Second                Jean-Michel Tellier v. Council of the European Union and
Chamber, extended composition , of the Court of First                  Commission of the European Communities .
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-561 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA v.            (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
Commission of the European Communities .
(') OJ No C 334 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-66/94 ( )                        Removal from the register of Case T-154/95 H
                           ( 95/C 351 /42 )                                                      ( 95/C 351 /44 )
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 8 November 1995 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First                 By order of 21 November 1995 the President of the Fifth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-66/94 : Auditel Sri v.                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                               T-154/95 : Ittima Maremmana Sari v. Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities .
(') 0 } No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .