15.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 259/15
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on              Grounds of claim:             —     Contrary to what is stated in
9 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered                                                  the contested decision, the
office is in Barcelona (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela                                                trade marks of which the
Giménez.                                                                                applicant is the proprietor
                                                                                have been put to genuine use
                                                                                in the market, thus fulfilling
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                                 the      requirements       of
                                                                                Article 56(3) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94 (1);
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                                             —     Contrary to what is stated in
      (OHIM) in Case 258/2000-1 on the ground that the                                                      the contested decision, there
      disputed Community trade mark number 56 739 GIOR-                                                     is likelihood of confusion
      GIO AIRE may not be registered pursuant to                                                            between the Community tra-
      Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;                                                          de mark and the trade marks
                                                                                of which the applicant is the
—     declare invalid that Community trade mark;                                                            proprietor, since the differ-
                                                                                ences between them to not
                                                                                allow the consumer to differ-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                                                    entiate between them.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Com-        Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.                      Removal from the Register of Case T-207/99 (1)
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (2001/C 259/26)
Registered Community          Word mark ‘GIORGIO AIRE’ —
trade mark:                   Application No 56 739 for goods                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
                              in Class 3
                                                                        By order of 17 May 2001, the President of the Second
Proprietor of the right to    Applicant                                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the trade mark or sign                                                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
asserted in the invalidity                                              Case T-207/99, Asociación Profesional de Fruticultores del
proceedings:                                                            Jalón Medio v Commission of the European Communities.
Trade mark or sign            Spanish trade marks ‘J. GIORGI’,          (1) OJ C 333 of 14.2.00.
asserted in the invalidity    ‘MISS GIORGI’, ‘GIORGI LINE’,
proceedings:                  registered for goods in Class 3
                              and ‘AIR GIORGI’, registered for
                              goods in Class 5                                 Removal from the Register of Case T-67/01 R
Decision of the Cancel-       Application for declaration of                                     (2001/C 259/27)
lation Division:              invalidity of the trade mark
                              upheld                                                      (Language of the case: English)
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the          By order of 10 May 2001, the President of the Chamber of the
Appeal:                       Cancellation Division and dis-            Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
                              missal of the application for dec-        ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-67/0 R, JCB
                              laration of invalidity                    Service v Commission of the European Communities.


title: Case C-66/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-66/05) (1)

   (2006/C 331/43)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-289/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 March 2006  — Lantzoni v Court of Justice (Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points — Link to the staff report)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2006 — Lantzoni v Court of Justice
   (Case T-289/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Award of promotion points - Link to the staff report)
   (2006/C 108/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Dimitra Lantzoni (represented by: C. Marhuenda initially and then by M. Bouche, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss, agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 7 October 2003 concerning the promotion points awarded to the applicant under the 1999-2000 procedure and the 2001 procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it relates to the award of promotion points for the 1999-2000 procedure;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-222/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (Community trade mark — Application for figurative Community mark deluxe — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctiveness acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 June 2015 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe)
   (Case T-222/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community mark deluxe - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctiveness acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 236/53)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Deluxe Laboratories, Inc. (Burbank, California, United States) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign deluxe as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 January 2014 (Case R 1250/2013-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 April 2005 in Case C-376/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/58/EC — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Protection of privacy — Protection of natural persons — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/14

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 28 April 2005
   in Case C-376/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 143/20)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-376/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 September 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-297/00: Action brought on 3 August 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
23.9.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 273/9
Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of                     State universities and higher-education establishments are
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   commissioned to carry out. It maintains that the argument
                           of Germany                                   advanced by the (German) Federal Government, to the effect
                                                                        that it is not possible in practice to draw a distinction between
                         (Case C-287/00)                                research activities and teaching activities (the latter being
                                                                        exempt from tax under Article 13(A)(1)(i), is based — as is
                                                                        apparent from the situation in other Member States — on
                         (2000/C 273/13)                                domestic factors which cannot be invoked by a Member State.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   (1) OJ L 145 of 13 June 1977, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 July 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Günter Wilms and Kilian Gross,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             grande instance de Paris (Third Chamber — Second
                                                                        section) by decision of that court of 23 June 2000 in the
(1) declare that, by exempting the research activities of State              case of S.A. LTJ Diffusion v S.A. Sadas Vertbaudet
      universities and higher education establishments from
      turnover tax pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of the Umsatz-
      steuergesetz (Law on Turnover Taxes) of 12 December                                        (Case C-291/00)
      1996, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 2 of the Sixth Council                                       (2000/C 273/14)
      Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmon-
      ization of the laws of the Member States relating to              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                European Communities by order of the Tribunal de grande
      uniform basis of assessment, as most recently amended;            instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris), received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 23 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.             of S.A. LTJ Diffusion v S.A. Sadas Vertbaudet on the following
                                                                        question:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Does the prohibition contained in Article 5(1) of Directive
                                                                        89/104 of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
The exemption from turnover tax of research activities which            Member States relating to trade marks (1) only cover identical
State universities and higher-education establishments are              reproduction — with no element being added or omitted —
commissioned to carry out, pursuant to Paragraph 4(21a) of              of the sign or signs constituting a mark, or can it extend to:
the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on Turnover Taxes), in the
version thereof introduced by Paragraph 4(5) of the Umsatz-             (1) reproduction of the distinctive feature of a mark compo-
steuer-Änderungsgesetz (Law amending the legislation on                      sed of a number of elements?
turnover taxes) of 12 December 1996 (BGBI. 1996, Part I,
p. 1851 et seq.), is contrary to Article 2(1) of the Sixth              (2) reproduction of all the constituent elements of the mark
Directive. In the context of research activities which they are               where new elements are added?
commissioned to undertake (i.e. research projects normally
based on an agreement specifying inter alia the type and scope          (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
of the services and consideration to be furnished), State
universities and higher-education establishments provide ser-
vices and are thus, in principle, taxable persons within the
meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive. According to
Article 5 of the directive, bodies governed by public law are
not, however, to be regarded as taxable persons in so far as
they are engaged in activities as public authorities.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 August 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
In undertaking research which they have been commissioned                                          Luxembourg
to carry out, State universities and higher-education establish-
ments are clearly not engaged in activities as public authorities.
                                                                                (Case C-297/00)
On the contrary, such activities are based on a private-law
commercial relationship between the university or higher-
education establishment concerned and the party by whom                                          (2000/C 273/15)
the research in question is commissioned. In the Commission’s
view, the effect of Part A of Article 13 of the Sixth Directive is      An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
to preclude exemption from tax in respect of research which             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.9.2000
ties on 3 August 2000 by the Commission of the European                   European Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer
Communities represented by Bernard Mongin, a member of its                and the Commission of the European Communities was
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a                   ties on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer represented by Jean-
member of the same service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Dominique des Arcis, Advocate, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the office of Horst Pakowski, Ambassador of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    the Federal Republic of Germany.
the Court should:
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to implement within the pre-
      scribed period the laws, regulations and administrative             —     uphold his appeal against the judgment handed down
      provisions, including any penalties, necessary to comply                  and dated and declare it to be well founded;
      with Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998
      amending Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of                 —     overturn that judgment, annul it and determine the
      training for the seafarers (1), the Luxembourg Government                 matter anew as the first instance court should have done;
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
      that directive;                                                     —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                                pay the costs including those incurred before the Court
2.    Order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                         of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
By reason of the mandatory nature of the provisions in Articles           —     Procedural defect:
1(10) and 226(3) EC, the Member States are required to take
the necessary measures to transpose directives into domestic                    The judgment delivered does not contain the slightest
law before expiry of the period prescribed for. The period,                     mention of the wholly irregular manner in which the
which is laid down in Article 2(1), of the directive expired on                 procedure was conducted or of the Commission’s unac-
25 May 1999 without the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg                               ceptable conduct in, after having denied all knowledge of
having adopted the necessary measures.                                          the contested drafts, submitting 20 voluminous docu-
                                                                                ments at the last minute. By its refusal to examine all
(1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.                                               aspects of this case, and to collect all the existing
                                                                                documentation before giving its decision, the Court of
                                                                                First Instance manifestly deprived the appellant of his
                                                                                right to defend himself and of legal certainty. The
                                                                                judgment handed down also infringes the principle of the
                                                                                right to a hearing because the Court of First Instance
                                                                                manifestly failed to comply with its obligation of strict
Appeal brought on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer against                           impartiality.
the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    —     Confused, biased and contradictory reasoning.
Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer and the
         Commission of the European Communities                           —     Infringement of general principles of law (the protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations, the prohibition on retro-
                        (Case C-301/00 P)                                       actively withdrawing or deferring acts which confer rights
                                                                                or benefits on individuals, the rights of the defence and
                         (2000/C 273/16)                                        the right to legal certainty).
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by               —     Infringement of higher rules on fundamental rights
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         protecting individuals.


title: Case T-137/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Mayer and Others v Commission (Council Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Commission Decision 2004/69/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Mayer and Others v Commission
   (Case T-137/04) (1)

   (Council Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Commission Decision 2004/69/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)
   (2006/C 224/94)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Kurt Martin Mayer (Eisentratten, Austria), Tilly Forstbetriebe GmbH (Treibach, Austria), Anton Volpini de Maestri (Spittal/Drau, Austria) and Johannes Volpini de Maestri (Seeboden, Austria) (represented by: M. Schaffgotsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokowski, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/69/EC of 22 December 2003 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 14, p. 21).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Finland is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 29.5.2004.


title: Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-207/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/7
2 . Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the              The Commission claims that the Court should :
     undertaking which is awarded the contract, as well as
     pursuing its activity on the awarder's premises, is still       — declare that by failing, within the prescribed time-limit,
     using assets which have been made available to it by the             to enact the laws, regulations and administrative
     awarder ?                                                            measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                          92/42/EEC of 21 May 1 992 ( 1 ) on efficiency
3 . May it depend on what type the assets made available by               requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid
     the awarder of the contract are ? Can it be decisive                 or gaseous fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     whether fully equipped units ( for example, a functioning            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty ,
     kitchen ) or assets of a subsidiary nature ( for example,
     consumables ) are made available ?                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
4 . Is it necessary, for there to be a part of a business , that
     the contractor forms a specific business organization to        Pleas in laiv and main arguments adduced in support:
     perform the contract ?
                                                                     The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 1 89 of
5 . May it be relevant whether the awarder of the contract           the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
     has had influence on the organization of the contractor         necessary measures to implement directives which are
     and in particular on the number and selection of the            addressed to them before the expiry of the period allotted to
     employees employed to perform the contract ?                    them for that purpose . The period in question expired on
                                                                      1 January 1993 , without the Kingdom of Belgium having
6 . May the existence of the part of a business and with the         adopted the necessary measures .
     contract for services, because the previous contractor no
     longer has anything to carry out as a business ?                (') OJ No L 167, 1992 , p . 17 .
7. Is there a legal transfer of an undertaking, business or
     part of a business within the meaning of the Directive if
     the hospital authority terminates the contract for
     services which it has concluded with a cleaning
     undertaking and on the basis of a new invitation to
     tender concludes a new contract for services with
                                                                     Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the
     another cleaning undertaking for the performance of the
                                                                         European Communities against the Italian Republic
     cleaning work in the hospital ? May there in that case be
     a legal transfer even if no tangible and no intangible                                   ( Case C-207/96 )
     assets are transferred ?                                                                   ( 96/C 247/ 13 )
8 . Does it depend on whether the new invitation to tender
     has taken place because the previous contractor did not         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    perform the work properly with his employees ( poor              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     performance ) or whether the new invitation to tender is        19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
     intended to achieve a reduction of costs ?                      Communities , represented by Marie Wolfcarius of its Legal
                                                                     Service and Enrico Altieri , Magistrato di Cassazione
                                                                     seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
(') OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 .                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                     Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     1 . declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
Action brought on 18 June 1996 by the Commission of the                   period the laws, regulations and administrative
European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                        Case C-205 /96 )                                  76/207/EEC ( 1 ) of 9 February 1976 on the
                                                                          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                         ( 96/C 247/ 12 )                                 men and women as regards access to employment,
                                                                          vocational training and promotion , and working
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                      conditions, and by maintaining in force within its own
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                legal system rules prohibiting night-work for women,
18 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                           contrary to Article 5 of that Directive , the Italian
Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and J.-F .                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                Community law ;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, a member
of the Commission 's legal service, Wagner Centre ,                 2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
Kirchberg .                                                               proceedings .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 247/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 8 . 96
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                         Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
 Pursuant to Article 189 of the Treaty, a directive is binding,          8 February 1996 in the administrative-law case of Gut
 as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to              Springenheide        GmbH          and       Rudolf Tusky       v.
 which it is addressed. According to established case-law,               Oberkreisdirektor      des      Kreises  Steinfurt  — Amt      für
that provision places Member States under an obligation to               Lebensmittelüberwachung,              Oberbundesanwalt     beim
 bring their legislation into conformity with directives within                      Bundesverwaltungsgericht, intervening
 the period prescribed therein .                                                                  ( Case C-2 10/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/ 15 )
 By not adopting within the prescribed period the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
comply with Council Directive 76/207/EEC , concerning the
                                                                         of the European Communities by order of the
principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards                Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court )
working conditions, and by maintaining in force within its
                                                                         — Third Chamber — of 8 February 1996 , which was
own legal system rules prohibiting night-work for women ,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 20 June 1 996 , for a
contrary to Article 5 of that Directive, the Italian Republic
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Gut Springenheide GmbH
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
                                                                         and Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
                                                                         Steinfurt — Amt fur Lebensmitteliiberwachung ( Chief
(') O J No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                               Administrative Officer of the Rural District of Steinfurt —
                                                                         Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs ), Chief Federal
                                                                         Prosecutor attached to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
                                                                         intervening, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . For the purposes of making the requisite determination
                                                                             pursuant to Article 10 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Regulation ( EEC )
Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the                      No 1 907/90 ( 1 ) whether statements designed to promote
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                        sales are likely to mislead the purchaser, is the actual
                          ( Case C-208/96 )                                  expectation of the consumers addressed to be
                                                                             determined or is the aforesaid provision based on the
                            ( 96/C 247/ 14 )
                                                                             criterion of an objectified concept of a purchaser which
                                                                             is to be the subject of a legal interpretation only ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              2.   In the event that the matter turns on consumers ' actual
 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                              expectations, the following questions arise :
Communities , represented by Hubert van Vliet, of its Legal                  ( a ) Is the view of the informed average consumer or
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           that of the casual consumer determinative ?
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz , of the
Legal Service of the Commission of the European                              ( b ) Can the proportion of consumers necessary in order
Communities, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                            to establish a determinative expectation on the part
                                                                                of consumers be established in percentage terms ?
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             3.  In the event that the matter turns on the criterion of an
                                                                             objectified concept of a purchaser which can be the
 1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period                   subject of a legal interpretation only, the question arises
       to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                     as to how that concept is to be determined .
       measures necessary in order to comply with Council
       Directive    92/ 119/EEC        of  17   December     1992        (') O J No L 173 , 1990 , p . 5 .
       introducing general Community measures for the
       control of certain animal diseases and specific measures
       relating to swine vesicular disease ('), the Kingdom of
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
       Treaty;
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                     Laaninoikeus by order of that court of 30 May 1996 in the
                                                                                proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy
                                                                                ( Case C-213 /96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case C-205/96 ( 2 ); the time-limit for transposition                                            ( 96/C 247/ 16 )
expired on 1 October 19 93 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Uudenmaan
(') OJ No I. 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 .
( 2 ) See page 7 of the Official Journal .                               Laaninoikeus ( Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court ) of
                                                                        30 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         brought by Outokumpu Oy on the following questions :


title: Case C-325/07: Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-325/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/52)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T - 279/09: Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/39

         Action brought on 9 July 2009 — Aiello v OHIM — Cantoni ITC (100 % Capri)
   (Case T - 279/09)
   2009/C 220/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Aiello (Vico Equense, Italy) (represented by: M. Coccia and L. Pardo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Cantoni ITC SpA (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2009, notified by fax on 14 May 2009, in case R 1148/2008-1 between Antonio Aiello and Cantoni ITC SpA and, by way of correction, reject opposition B 856 163 to the registration of the trade mark ‘100 % CAPRI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (No 003563848).

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Antonio Aiello

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of the word and number elements ‘100 % Capri’ (registration application No 3 563 848) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CANTONI L.T.C. S.p.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark (registration application No 2 689 891) and national figurative mark composed of the word element ‘CAPRI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the application for registration for all the contested goods.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Articles 50(1) and 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (replaced by Regulation No 207/2009).


title: Case T-399/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan — Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)
   (Case T-399/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan - Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 063/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato and F. Gatti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and C. Martini, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Panama, Panama)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1657/2014 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Morgan & Morgan and Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-2/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 4 January 2010 — Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini s.a.r.l. and Eolica di Altamura s.r.l. v Regione Puglia

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 4 January 2010 — Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini s.a.r.l. and Eolica di Altamura s.r.l. v Regione Puglia
   (Case C-2/10)
   2010/C 63/54
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Azienda Agro-Zootecnica Franchini s.a.r.l. and Eolica di Altamura s.r.l.

      Defendant: Regione Puglia

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(1226) of Law No 296 of 27 December 2006, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 5 of the decreto del Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare (Decree of the Ministry for the Protection of the Environment, Land and Sea) of 17 October 2007 and with Article 2(6) of Regional Law No 31 of Apulia of 21 October 2008, compatible with Community law, and in particular with the principles which may be inferred from Directives 2001/77/EC (1) and 2009/28/EC (2) (concerning renewable energies) and Directives 79/409/EEC (3) and 92/43/EEC (4) (concerning the protection of birds and natural habitats), in so far as those provisions absolutely prohibit, without distinction, the location of wind turbines not intended for self-consumption in the sites of Community importance (SCIs) and special protection areas (SPAs) comprising the ‘Natura 2000’ ecological network, instead of requiring an appropriate environmental impact assessment to be carried out to analyse the impact of an individual project on the particular site affected?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 283, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.

      (3)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-163/00: Action brought on 5 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
24.6.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 176/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court
                                                                        to:
The Commission considers that it is the duty of Ireland to
initiate, in due time, the procedures necessary for incorporating       — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period pre-
Directives 96/24/EC, 96/25/EC and 98/67/EC into Irish law so                 scribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
that such process is complete within the time-limit laid down,               necessary to comply with Commission Directive
irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and to inform                 98/22/EC (1) of 15 April 1998 laying down the minimum
the Commission thereof.                                                      conditions for carrying out plant health checks in the
                                                                             Community, at inspection posts other than those at the
                                                                             place of destination, of plants, plant products or other
Ireland has not yet adopted the measures relating to the                     objects coming from third countries, the Hellenic Republic
abovementioned Directives and has, in any event, not notified                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
those measures to the Commission.                                            directive;
(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.96, p. 33.
                                                                        — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(2) OJ L 125, 23.5.96, p. 35.
(3) OJ L 261, 24.9.98, p. 10.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty
                                                                        establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
                                                                        binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                        State to which it is addressed. Under the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 10 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
Action brought on 5 May 2000 by the Commission of the                   appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                   fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
                                                                        resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Com-
                         (Case C-163/00)                                munity.
                         (2000/C 176/32)                                It is clear that the Hellenic Republic is required to take
                                                                        measures to comply with the above directive.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 5 May 2000 by the Commission of                 The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not yet
the European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-                  taken the appropriate measures to transpose the directive in
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in           question fully into the Greek legal system.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.               (1) OJ L 126 of 28.4.1998, p. 26.


title: Case T-347/03: Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco, Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.1.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 7/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              of the allegations made by the applicants of cross-subsidies for
                                                                         parcels and express parcel operations, the Decision is therefore
                                                                         vitiated by a failure to state reasons (infringement of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of the European               Article 253 EC).
      Communities of 27 May 2003 on State aid N 784/2002
      — United Kingdom, ‘Government rural network support
      funding, debt payment funding and rolling working                  (1) OJ L 247, p. 27.
      capital loan to Post Office Limited’, document number
      C(2003) 1652 final, in so far as it terminates the State aid
      complaint procedure initiated by the first applicant’s
      letter of 3 December 2002;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco,
                                                                         Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-347/03)
By letter of 3 December 2002, the applicants requested the                                         (2004/C 7/65)
Commission to investigate the costs and earnings structures of
the postal undertaking Consignia plc (Royal Mail Group plc)                                 (Language of the case: French)
as regards parcels and express parcel service as to the existence
of a cross-subsidy.
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
The applicants object to the termination by means of the                 the European Communities on 9 October 2003 against the
contested decision of the State aid complaint procedure which            Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Bran-
they initiated. In particular, the applicants complain that, by          co, Lda, in liquidation, of Lisbon, Portugal, represented by
that contested approval decision, the Commission terminated              Bolota Belchior, lawyer.
its State aid investigation in respect of the subject of the
complaint while it was still at a preliminary stage.
                                                                         The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:
The applicants take the view that if there had been an                   —     annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(87) 0860 of
appropriate and comprehensive examination of the obser-                        23 October 2002 which reduced the European Social
vations which the applicants submitted under the complaint                     Fund (EFS) contribution for training actions approved
procedure, the Commission would have encountered serious                       by the Commission (File 870302P3) and required the
problems and doubts as to the compatibility with the common                    applicant to repay the sum of EUR 13 929,7, and
market of the facts put forward in the complaint and would
have had to initiate a full assessment. In effect, the applicants’       —     order the defendant to pay the costs
complaint demonstrates in detail that the parcel service of the
United Kingdom’s Post is not achieving the coverage of costs
required under the Commission’s Decision of 19 June 2002
on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
for Deutsche Post AG (1) and that therefore the suspicion of a
cross-subsidy — described in the Deutsche Post Decision as
inadmissible State aid — is founded as regards parcel services.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that the contested reduction and
                                                                         obligation to make a refund derive from the fact that the
                                                                         Commission failed to approve the request for payment of the
The applicants maintain that the parcel services which form              balance under the EFS financing procedure and did not select
the subject-matter of the applicants’ complaint are mentioned            certain expenses submitted by it.
in the Commission’s Decision only in passing and without
separate consideration of individual spheres of activity. The
Commission did not examine whether ‘Parcel Services’ consti-             The applicant submitted to the Portuguese European Social
tute the provision of a universal parcel service or, for example,        Fund Department (DAFSE) its application for EFS funding for
the handling of express parcels and, accordingly, an area of             a vocational training action on 29 June 1986, and the
competition which has long since been liberalised. In the light          Commission declared its application successful.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/36                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            10.1.2004
Subsequently, the applicant submitted to the DAFSE an                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
application for payment of the balance of PTE 991 009 by the
EFS and of the balance of PTE 810 226 by the Portuguese                   —     annul the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2003 concern-
State. The DAFSE certified that request, which the Commission                   ing the restructuring aid which France plans to put into
approved by document No 4242 of 13 March 1989, although                         effect in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-
it considered the sum of 1 192 162 to be ineligible. On                         Méditerranée;
17 February 1998 the Commission decided, however, to
suspend the contribution.                                                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The Portuguese judicial authorities decided to discontinue the
legal actions pending against the applicant, thereby eliminating
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
in the applicant’s view the presumption that it had acted
irregularly. Nevertheless, the Commission adopted the decision
at issue in these proceedings.                                            By the contested decision, the Commission decided that the
                                                                          restructuring aid which France was planning to put into effect
                                                                          in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée
The contested decision, in the applicant’s view, infringes                was, under certain conditions, compatible with the common
Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 and Council Decision 83/516/                  market. The applicant challenges that decision, asserting that it
EEC since the applicant complied strictly with the conditions             has a direct and individual interest in obtaining its annulment,
laid down for approval of the EFS contribution, thereby                   having regard to its active participation in the formal investi-
acquiring ‘subjective rights attaching specifically to it’.               gation procedure in respect of the aid and its competitive
                                                                          position in the reference market.
The decision also breaches the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations in so far as the Commission’s approval            In support of its action it relies, first, on alleged failure to state
decision vested in the applicant an entitlement to the contri-            the reasons on which the contested decision is based and,
butions and gave rise to an expectation on its part that it               secondly, on alleged manifest errors of fact and assessment.
would receive them if it carried out the action on the agreed
basis and also because the measure contested herein could
have been put into effect as early as 1989.
Finally, the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of
the principle of proportionality since the applicant incurred
expenses on the assumption that the Commission would fulfil
                                                                          Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
its commitments.
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool
                                                                          GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-350/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/67)
Action brought on 13 October 2003 by Corsica Ferries
France against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                        (Case T-349/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2004/C 7/66)                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Wirtschafts-
                                                                          kammer Kärnten and best connect Ampere Strompool GmbH,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Klagenfurt (Austria), represented by M. Angerer, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul Commission Decision COMP/M.2947 — Verbund/
European Communities on 13 October 2003 by Corsica                              EnergieAllianz of 11 June 2003 on the compatibility of a
Ferries France, established in Bastia (France), represented by                  concentration with the common market and the Agree-
S. Rodrigues and C. Scapel, lawyers, with an address for service                ment on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement)
in Luxembourg.                                                                  and order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova by order of 29 July 1997 in the case of Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v. (1) International Factors Italia SpA - IFITALIA; (2) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling - Germany); and (3) Ministero della Difesa (Case C-295/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 295/25
               and if the latter, what amount or degree                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
               of contribution amounts to a 'significant                   Genova by order of 29 July 1997 in the case of Industrie
               contribution' for these purposes; or                        Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — Uhi 1ALIA;
       ( ii ) only where the discharge of nitrogen compounds               (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
               from agricultural sources itself accounts for a                                 (3 ) Ministero della Difesa
               concentration of nitrates in those waters in excess                                   ( Case C-295/97)
               of 50 mg/1 ( i.e. leaving out of account any
               contribution from other sources); or                                                      97/C 295/44 )
       ( iii ) on some other basis and, if so, what basis ?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 29 July 1997 from the
2. If Question 1 is answered otherwise than in sense ( ii )                Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa), Sixth Civil
       above, is the Nitrates Directive invalid (to the extent             Chamber, which was received at the Court Registry on
       of its application to surface freshwaters ) on the                  11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       grounds that it infringes:                                          Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — IFITALIA;
                                                                           (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
       (i)     the principle that the polluter should pay; and/or          ( 3 ) Ministero della Difesa on the following questions:
       ( ii ) the principle of proportionality; and/or
                                                                           1 . Can a national court request the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities to rule directly on whether
       (iii ) the fundamental property rights of those owning                    a legislative provision of a Member State is compatible
               and/or farming land draining into surface
                                                                                with the provisions of Article 92 of the Treaty ( State
               freshwaters required to be identified under                       aid)?
               Article 3 ( 1 ), being areas of land which are then
               designated by Member States as vulnerable zones
               under Article 3 ( 2 )?                                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: can it be argued
                                                                                that, by Law No 26 of 3 April 1979 establishing
(•) OJ L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                           a special administration procedure for large
( 2 ) Council Directive of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality                   undertakings in a state of crisis, and in particular by
      required of surface water intended for the abstraction of                  the provisions of that Law set out in the grounds of
      drinking water in the Member States ( OJ L 194, 25 . 7. 1995,              the present order, the Italian State has granted to such
      p. 26 ).                                                                   undertakings as are covered by that Law (that is to
                                                                                say, large undertakings ) aid contrary to Article 92 of
                                                                                the Treaty ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Munster by order of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case
of Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt Dortmund                                   Removal from the register of C-407/95 (*)
                                     Unna
                                                                                97/C 295/45 )
                              ( Case C-294/97
                                ( 97/C 295/43 )                             By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                            removal from the register of Case C-407/95: Kingdom of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                       supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
 (Finance Court), Munster (Ninth Chamber), of 28 July                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
 11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    O OJ C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .
Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt (Tax Office),
Dortmund-Unna, on the following question:
 Are the 'add-back' provisions in the second sentence of
 paragraph 8 ( 7) and the second sentence of paragraph 12
 (2 ) (2 ) of the Gewerbesteuergesetz ( Business Tax Law)                              Removal from the register of C-58/96 (')
 compatible with the principle of freedom to provide
 services under Article 59 of the Treaty on European Union                                              ( 97/C 295/46 )
 of 7 February 1992 ?
                                                                            By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the


title: Case T-206/01: Action brought on 7 September 2001 by P&O Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 331/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
Finally, the applicant challenges several aspects of the Com-              to BAI in the period 1995-1998. The applicant considered
mission’s decision fixing the amount of the fine imposed,                  that if the enquiry was limited to this period, a vast amount of
including the starting point adopted for calculating the basic             other State aid received by BAI would be ignored, and in
amount, the calculation of the duration of the infringement,               February 2001, the applicant submitted a formal complaint.
the increase in the basic amount for aggravating factors, and
the percentage reduction from the basic amount for mitigating
factors. It claims, inter alia, that the contested decision infringes      In December 2000, the applicant commenced a procedure
Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of                 against the Commission under Article 232 EC for its failure to
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.                                     act in relation to all the elements of the applicant’s complaint.
                                                                           That procedure is now the subject of Court proceedings (2).
                                                                           By the present action, the applicant requests the Court to
                                                                           annul the Commission Decision to the extent that it approves
                                                                           aid granted to BAI. It submits that the limitation period
Action brought on 7 September 2001 by P&O Ferries                          provided for in Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) does not
(Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of the                         apply to this case, and that the pre-1989 State aid identified in
                     European Communities                                  the complaint must be addressed expressly by the Commission.
                                                                           It alleges that the Commission is wrong in finding that the
                                                                           three shipowning companies (‘SPCs’) and BAI constitute a
                           (Case T-206/01)                                 single economic group and that charter payments between
                                                                           BAI and the SPCs are irrelevant to State aid laws.
                          (2001/C 331/37)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Further, the applicant submits that the Commission’s con-
                                                                           clusions in relation to the market economy investor test are
                                                                           wrong, and the applicant alleges that a number of guarantees
                                                                           and public sector cash grants and loans should have been
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  taken into account in the contested decision.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 September 2001 by P&O Ferries
(Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Julian Ellison and Mark               As far as the restructuring aid is concerned, the applicant
Clough QC of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).                     rejects the Commission’s findings that the SPCs/BAI economic
                                                                           group has made, and will make, satisfactory returns on equity
                                                                           and that BAI pays market rate charter to the SPCs. It
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                submits that these findings are based on wholly unreasonable
                                                                           assumptions as to the residual values of the vessels. The
—     annul under Article 230 (ex 173) of the EC Treaty the                applicant further rejects the Commission’s conclusions about
      Commission Decision C (2001) 1442 of 8 May 2001                      the relevant market, its finding that a withdrawal of BAI would
      concerning State aid implemented by France in favour                 leave the applicant in a monopoly position on the relevant
      of the Bretagne Angleterre Irlande company (save for                 market(s) and its assessment of the intensity of the restructur-
      Articles 1(2) and 1(3)) to the extent that it has approved           ing aid package.
      aid granted to BAI,
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                   Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has
                                                                           infringed a number of procedural requirements under the state
                                                                           aid rules, in particular the requirement to inform the parties
                                                                           concerned of the matters under investigation.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is a ferry operator which provides tourist and
freight ferry services on certain routes between France and the
United Kingdom in the western end of the Channel. Its main
competitor is the French ferry operator Bretagne-Angleterre-
Irlande SA, ‘Brittany Ferries’ (‘BAI’).                                    (1) Procedure No C 31/98.
                                                                           (2) Case T-49/01 (OJ 2001 C 161, p. 19).
                                                                           (3) Council Regulation(EC)No 659/1999 of 22.3.1999 laying down
The applicant brought its concerns in relation to BAI’s receipt                detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
of State aid informally to the Commission’s attention in                       (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
May 1998, very shortly after the Commission’s opening of the
formal procedure (1). It later became clear to the applicant that
the Commission was focusing exclusively on State aid awarded


title: Case T-411/04: Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/51

         Action brought on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-411/04)
   (2004/C 300/100)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 October 2004 by Jean-Paul Keppenne, residing in Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Paul-Emmanuel Ghislain, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions by the Commission not to increase the number of DG priority points awarded to the applicant in the context of the 2003 appraisal and not to promote the applicant to Grade A5 during the 2003 promotions exercise, together with the appointing authority's decision replying to the applicant's objections (R/673/03 and R/716/03);

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action follows on from that in Case T-272/04 which challenged the tacit decision rejecting the complaints submitted by the same applicant. Since the appointing authority finally adopted express rejection decisions, it is specifically those decisions whose annulment is sought in the present case.
   In support of his claims, the applicant essentially maintains that the decisions at issue constitute a disguised sanction imposed on the applicant, owing to his secondment in the interests of the service to the Court of Justice, and did not take appropriate account of his merits.
   The pleas raised in the application are based on infringement of the rules governing the appraisal and promotion of officials, the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and on an allegation of a misuse of powers.


title: Case T-189/06: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Fines — Leniency Notice)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Arkema France v Commission
   (Case T-189/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Leniency Notice)
   2011/C 269/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Arkema France SA (Colombes, France) (represented initially by A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, and subsequently by S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault and O. Beynet, and subsequently by V. Bottka, P.J. Van Nuffel and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arkema France SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-369/16 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/2

         Appeal brought on 5 July 2016 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 22 April 2016 in joined cases T-50/06 RENV II and T-69/06 RENV II: Aughinish Alumina Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-369/16 P)
   (2016/C 371/02)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, T. Joyce, agents, P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment

               —

               annul the Decision (1)

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Ireland relies on four pleas in this appeal:

               a)

               The judgment of the General Court is wrong in law in circumstances where it held that the principle of legal certainty did not apply and/or did not avail Ireland and Aughinish Alumina Ltd, notwithstanding the inexcusable delay by the Commission in reaching the contested decision.

               b)

               The General Court erred in law in finding that there was no violation of the principle of respect for legitimate expectations, despite the finding that the delay in the investigation by the Commission was unjustified and inexcusable.

               c)

               The General Court erred in concluding that the aid in issue ‘corresponded with an aid scheme’ as defined in article 1(d) of Council Regulation 659/1999 (2); further the General Court erred in concluding that the limitation period in article 15 of Regulation 659/1999 ran from the date of each import of mineral oils by Aughinish Alumina Ltd.

               d)

               The General Court erred in refusing to accede to the application on the basis that the aid could be defined as pre-accession existing aid.

      (1)  2006/323/EC: Commission Decision of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel in a production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (notified under document number C (2005) 4436)

      OJ L 119, p. 12

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1989 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty

      OJ L 83, p. 1


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 2004 in Case C-425/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Milazzo in Provvidenza Regio v AXA Assicurazioni SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/3

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 19 October 2004
   in Case C-425/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Milazzo in Provvidenza Regio v AXA Assicurazioni SpA (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 69/07)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-425/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Milazzo (Italy), made by decision of 18 April 2003, received at the Court on 6 October 2003, in the proceedings between Provvidenza Regio and AXA Assicurazioni SpA the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 19 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Milazzo, by decision of 18 April 2003, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-74/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nógrád Megyei Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály (Sixth VAT Directive — Accession of a new Member State — Tax on subsidised purchase of goods — Right to deduct — Exclusions laid down by national legislation at the time the Sixth Directive came into force — Member States’ option to retain exclusions))

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nógrád Megyei Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft. v Adó- és Pénzügyi Elenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály
   (Case C-74/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Accession of a new Member State - Tax on subsidised purchase of goods - Right to deduct - Exclusions laid down by national legislation at the time the Sixth Directive came into force - Member States’ option to retain exclusions))
   2009/C 141/26
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Nógrád Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PARAT Automotive Cabrio Textiltetőket Gyártó Kft.

      Defendant: Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nógrád Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation restricting the deductibility of the tax relating to the subsidised acquisition of equipment to the non-subsidised portion

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes national legislation which in the case of acquisition of goods subsidised by public funds, allow the deduction of related VAT only up to the limit of the part of the costs of that acquisition that is not subsidised.

               2.

               Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive confers on taxable persons rights on which they may rely before a national court to contest national rules that are incompatible with that Article.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case C-127/12: Action brought on 7 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/9

         Action brought on 7 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-127/12)
   2012/C 126/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by applying different tax treatment to donations and successions between beneficiaries and donees resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, between bequeathers resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, and between donations and similar transfers of immovable property situated within and outside of Spain, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Articles 28 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA);

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In Spain, the Impuesto sobre Sucesiones y Donaciones (succession and donation tax) is a national tax, the basic provisions for which are laid down in Ley 29/87 (Law 29/87) of 18 December 1987, and in the regulation adopted by Real Decreto (Royal Decree) 1629/1991 of 8 November 1991. The management and collection of the tax was granted to the Autonomous Communities, although national legislation applies in the cases laid down therein, that is, primarily in cases in which there is no personal or real connection with an Autonomous Community.

               2.

               In all of the Autonomous Communities which have adopted succession and donation tax legislation, the tax burden born by the tax payer is considerably lower than that imposed under national legislation, which leads to a difference in tax treatment of donations and successions between beneficiaries and donees resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, between bequeathers resident in Spain and those not resident in Spain, and between donations and similar transfers of immovable property situated within and outside of Spain.

               3.

               The Spanish national legislation at issue infringes Articles 21 and 63 TFEU and Articles 28 and 40 EEA.


title: Case T-633/14: Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/28

         Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)
   (Case T-633/14)
   (2015/C 127/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States of America) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-46/01: Action brought on 2 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

text:
C 108/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.4.2001
      law the interests underlying the Ministerial orders. The           Appeal brought on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic
      Commission’s claim that Article 21(3) may be understood            Cruises and other companies against the order made on
      as conferring a duty on it to act by way of decision as if         12 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court
      its role as ‘guardian of the treaties’, together with the          of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      overriding interests of Community law, required such               T-201/99 Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council of
      a solution, makes no sense whatever. In fact, if the               the European Union and Commission of the European
      Commission had reason to believe that the Portuguese                                          Communities
      Republic infringed a particular duty to inform, the proper
      procedure, and the only one in this case, was to bring
      infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC.
                                                                                (Case C-49/01 P)
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/11)
                                                                         An appeal against the order made on 12 December 2000 by
                                                                         the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in Case T-201/99 Royal Olympic
                                                                         Cruises and Others v Council of the European Union and
Action brought on 2 February 2001 by Commission of                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
    the European Communities against Italian Republic                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 6 February 2001 by Royal Olympic Cruises and other
                                                                         companies, represented by Professor N. Skandamis, of the
                          (Case C-46/01)                                 Athens Bar, and A. Potamianos of the Piraeus Bar.
                         (2001/C 108/10)
                                                                         The appellants claim that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      —     set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
represented by Hans Støvlbaek and Roberto Amorosi, acting                      12 December 2000;
as Agents.
                                                                         —     refer back to the Court of First Instance for judgment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the action for damages brought by the appellants on
                                                                               9 September 1999;
—     declare that, by failing to draw up and forward to
      the Commission the appropriate plans, outlines and
      summary inventories necessary to comply with Articles              —     order the Council of the European Union and the
      11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 Sep-                 European Commission to pay the costs.
      tember 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
      nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PC13/PCT), the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      those provisions of the directive;and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the Italian Republic.
                                                                         1.    Inadequate reasoning: the dismissal of the action for
                                                                               damages as clearly unfounded denied the applicants
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                their procedural right to put forward and to develop
                                                                               sufficiently their arguments concerning a case which is of
The Italian authorities should have taken steps to communicate                 major importance and, in many respects, novel for the
to the Commission the various plans, outlines and summary                      case-law.
inventories, provided for by Articles 11 and 4(1) of the
directive referred to in the Commission’s application, by
16 September 1999. To date, it has not yet done so.                      2.    Misinterpretation of the condition requiring a direct
                                                                               causal link.
(1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.


title: Case T-228/08: Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Szomborg v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/57

         Action brought on 18 June 2008 — Szomborg v Commission
   (Case T-228/08)
   (2008/C 209/103)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Grzegorz Szomborg (Jastarnia, Poland) (represented by R. Nowosielski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Commission failed to act, in breach of its obligations under Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 (1), in that it did not publish a scientific assessment of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans and did not present its findings to the European Parliament and the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its costs;

               —

               order the applicant's costs to be reimbursed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In accordance with Article 27 of Council Regulation No 2187/2005 the Commission was obliged to ensure by 1 January 2008 that a scientific assessment was conducted of the effects of using in particular gillnets, trammel nets and entangling nets on cetaceans and its findings presented to the European Parliament and the Council. In connection with the failure to present such a report within the prescribed period, the applicant called on the Commission to act, by letter of 25 February 2008. In reply to the applicant's call to act, the Commission asserted that such a scientific assessment had not yet been presented as a result of the lack of cooperation by other parties.
   Considering that in those circumstances the Commission's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 27 of Council Regulation No 2187/2005 is beyond dispute, the applicant brought the present action for failure to act under Article 232 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ 2005 L 349, p. 1).